On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 02:29:54 PM Fil Mackay wrote: > OK - would this be a valuable tool to have around? Or does it reduce to > something simpler that I'm not aware of?
Since Base.Cartesian already exists, I guess the extra thing this gives you is the ability to start at something higher than 1. Truth be told, you can do that with @nexprs too; I'll leave it as an exercise in reading Cartesian's documentation :). > The idea of replacing the "i" in the anonymous function seems a bit > creepy..? The replacement needs to be done carefully, of course--it's much more controlled than just "replace every i in the string". The approach you took would result in calling eval() every couple of lines in code that makes heavy use of Cartesian; that would be really bad for the performance of parsing. --Tim
