On Thursday, 28 February 2013 at 15:51:02 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/28/13 10:49 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/28/13 10:24 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
That is not my idea of "tap". This is my idea of "tap":
Object (func) (Object o)
{
func(o);
return o;
}
I know. I think my tap is better than your tap.
... and closer in intent to Ruby's tap as I understand it from
reading http://ruby-doc.org/core-2.0/Object.html#method-i-tap
Ruby's tap just applies the passed block to the object it is
called on. I am not quite sure how your range idea comes into
play here?
David
