On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Alan Isaac <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't like the `apply` proposal as well as the `sequence` proposal, > but it points to the same issue, even if it offers a less general solution. > The existence of the issue is the reason for proposing a new primitive. > Is there any sympathy for this?
I would support adding `apply` on tasks to NetLogo 5.3. This can be done without adding any new syntax. I don't think the additional generality of `sequence` justifies the cost of having to invent entirely new, single-purpose syntax for it. (In Mathematica the Sequence syntax is natural because it's a term-rewriting language through-and-through; NetLogo is a totally different animal, an ordinary call-by-value language with a limited number of special forms.) `apply` primitive would accept the existing concise task syntax, so calling it wouldn't always involve any task noise, for example you wouldn't need to write `apply task [atan ?1 ?2] [3 4]`, you could just write `apply atan [3 4]`. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "netlogo-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
