Larry Wall wrote:
[...]
[I wrote:]
: maybe it's because I don't think a
: function's arity is quite the same as it's *minimum* number of
: parameters? I mean, it makes sense in a functional language... but you
: don't have functions with a variable number of arguments there.
Sure, but one can
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 04:38:51PM +0100, Steffen Mueller wrote:
: Damian Conway wrote:
: >Larry wrote:
: >
: >>On the other hand, I could see an argument that said anyone who
: >>doesn't know what .arity means shouldn't be writing routines that
: >>depend on it...
:
: >That was more or less my li
--- Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- Steffen Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Damian Conway wrote:
> > > Larry wrote:
> > >
> > >> On the other hand, I could see an argument that said anyone who
> > >> doesn't know what .arity means shouldn't be writing routines
> that
> > >> depend
--- Steffen Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Damian Conway wrote:
> > Larry wrote:
> >
> >> On the other hand, I could see an argument that said anyone who
> >> doesn't know what .arity means shouldn't be writing routines that
> >> depend on it...
>
> > That was more or less my line of thoug
Damian Conway wrote:
Larry wrote:
On the other hand, I could see an argument that said anyone who
doesn't know what .arity means shouldn't be writing routines that
depend on it...
That was more or less my line of thought.
Now, I think I'll dare claim my English is not exactly bad for a 21
year-o
Larry wrote:
On the other hand, I could see an argument that said anyone who
doesn't know what .arity means shouldn't be writing routines that
depend on it...
That was more or less my line of thought.
Damian
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 10:27:24AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
: Austin Hastings wrote:
:
: >Request: Change .req method of Routine to .arity
:
: I rather like this idea.
I'm not attached to ".req". But ".arity" will be opaque to many
non-mathematicians. Plus, it's throwing out "minimum" part
Austin Hastings wrote:
Request: Change .req method of Routine to .arity
I rather like this idea.
Damian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
> 1- Huffman. "req" is a valuable 3-letter token
It only has "value" if there's a better use for it. :)
--
IDIOCY:
Never Underestimate The Power Of Stupid People In Large Groups
http://www.despa
Request: Change .req method of Routine to .arity
Why?:
1- Huffman. "req" is a valuable 3-letter token for a low-frequency
method.
2- "req" is insufficiently descriptive. "arity" is vastly superior
in this regard.
=Austin
10 matches
Mail list logo
