Thanks for the heads-up, John -
I would agree that your changes are a more natural locution. I use these
words a lot
in various vocabs, but I reckon it won't be too hard to adapt to this new
pattern.
Cheers,
~cw
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 10:55 PM, John Benediktsson <mrj...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I pushed a (breaking compatibility) change to the development branch of
> Factor that swaps the arguments for ``start``, ``start*``, and ``subseq?``.
>
> Instead of:
>
> ( subseq seq -- ? )
>
> it is now:
>
> ( seq subseq -- ? )
>
> It is more natural this way, and most places it was used did some form of
> ``swap subseq?``, but it does create a backwards compatibility problem in a
> relatively common word.
>
> Please let me know if this is a problem for anyone.
>
> Thanks,
> John.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Factor-talk mailing list
> Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
>
>
--
*~ Memento Amori*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Factor-talk mailing list
Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
