On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Cyrille.Damez@laposte.net hat gesagt: // Cyrille.Damez@laposte.net wrote:
Maybe it would be safer to have the shortcut [l] be used for [list] instead of [lister]
Yes, I think so, too. [l] for [list] would be (almost) in sync with [f] and [symbol] (only that [l] then actually should be for [list append], not just for [list] without method).
Two questions:
- why does list deserve a shortcut like that when neither [symbol] nor
[pointer] have one?
- how much should [list append] be like [f] in order to deserve that kind
of favour? It can't be exactly the same because the bang required by [f] is confused with the empty list that would have to be stored in [l] so that [l] behaves like [f]. In other words, a [f] or [symbol] or [pointer] is like a single-inlet [pack] plus an extra cold inlet that behaves like a set-method of the hot inlet (except that [pack] doesn't have a set-method, contrary to most objects that are pack-like! consistency!)
PS: i'm looking for adjectives to say "pack-like" and "pack-like-with-set", in a less cumbersome way. Any ideas?
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada