Larry wrote:
On the other hand, I could see an argument that said anyone who doesn't know what .arity means shouldn't be writing routines that depend on it...
That was more or less my line of thought.
Now, I think I'll dare claim my English is not exactly bad for a 21 year-old non-native speaker. Being a physics and CS student, I do also have mathematical background, but it still took me a few seconds to figure out "arity" *in this context*. Maybe that's because I can't think of an exact German equivalent either; maybe it's because I don't think a function's arity is quite the same as it's *minimum* number of parameters? I mean, it makes sense in a functional language... but you don't have functions with a variable number of arguments there.
To cut this short: I think req or reqargs or somesuch would be better. Why choose the method names that sound more like computer science for the very sake of that?
Steffen
--
sub'_{q} tsuJ}}_();sub's{seek+DATA,0,0}sub'p{print&_}sub'r{reverse$_[0]}
@_=(('')x2,split" ",<DATA>);s!!&s,$_=<DATA>;s/}.*?}/$_[$s+1]/
if$s;s/(}.*?})/r$1/e;eval$_;p,[EMAIL PROTECTED];
__DATA__
} rehtona} } lreP} },rekcah}