On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:25:46 +0000, John Colvin wrote: > Short answer: no. .codeof for functions is something I've wanted for > ages, but no movement so far.
'cause `.codeof` is a can of worms. it is just a bad replace for AST macros, and having it means that internal string representation should be maintained intact for very long time. that's if i got you right and you mean that `.codeof` should return something like javascript's, `.toString` on functions: rebuild string representation of function source code. besides, it is impossible to write `.codeof` for functions without source. ;-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
