> I do agree that the internals shouldn't drive the language (otherwise a
> crack team of Ninja would've already taken care of that Conway guy... :),
> but neither can they be completely ignored. 

Agreed. Which reminds me, we should call off those Ninja... :-)

> Honestly, I'd rather you put together a general scheme for handling the
> object/scalar morphing thingie and RFC it, and then we migrate the various
> functions that people think should do the object thing as time and effort
> allow.

Agreed again. No reason to bloat the language with 10,000 pragmas.

I think RFCs 49 (object STRING func) and 73 (this one), taken together,
do a pretty good job of a first stab at this. However, as I get more
input from people, integrating this all together into another RFC is
probably a good idea, as you suggest. 

But I do like keeping 49 separate because it could be integrated into
the language without having to include 73.

-Nate

Reply via email to