> Doesn't this also work? > > a b c tuck [ foo ] [ bar ] 2bi*
You're right. "tuck" is one of those shufflers I always forget about. > Certain high priests lobbied to have '2bi*' changed to have that > 'tuck' be > implicit. I strongly opposed the change; it is not consistent with the > way 'spread' is defined. However I *am* in favor of naming that > pattern. So > if someone can come up with a name and a generalization of the > concept, it > would be good. I agree that having 2bi* do the tuck for you would violate my expectations of what the word would do. I like the currying idea because it provides a clever way (granted, perhaps too clever) of stacking arbitrary cleave-spread patterns: a b c d [ foo ] [ bar ] bi, bi*, bi ! a b d foo , a c d bar a b c d e f g [ foo ] [ bar ] bi*, bi, bi, bi*, bi ! a b d e f foo , a c d e g bar (read the "bi"s backwards) -Joe ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Factor-talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
