Tim Vernum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Having optional dependencies is one thing that could be added.
Adding some larger amount of complexity though. I've tried to find some use cases for this - my fantasy seems too limited, sorry. > You could change if/unless to be treated more like dependencies, > rather than conditions. Sounds interesting. How would you see something like this? >> Sometimes people even use different names for the same thing, I >> remember <map> (looks as if it has been borrowed from lisp - not >> suspect of being procedural) and others. > > That's part of what I'm getting at here. > Who cares if lisp is procedural or not? We are in the same boat, Tim. I don't want to fight about names for things or about notations, it's the functionality that matters. > I'd like to see list/set based operations. Well, <execon> and <apply> are there just because I wanted set based operations as well. Stefan
