John M. Dlugosz 提到:
> I just finished another pass on S09<v24>, and in this posting I note 
> editorial issues with the file that can easily be corrected.  This is as 
> opposed to subjects for deep discussion, which I'll save for later and 
> individual posts.
> = on Mixing subscripts
> "Within a C<.[]> indexing operation..."
> Why the dot?  The examples don't use a dot, and this makes it sound like the 
> dot is involved and that is confusing.  I see that C<.{}> was also mentioned 
> earlier.  

The dot is there to signify that we're talking about postcircumfix:<[
]>, the indexing function, instead of circumfix:<[ ]>, the array
construction function.  I guess we can say "Within a postcircumfix C<[]>
indexing operation", but I'm not sure it's clearer.

> = on The semicolon operator
> "Another thing that's not going to fly easily is simply dropping out 
> terms...." to the end of the section.
> That is out of place.  The transition is wrong, and it does not express 
> something that is unique to this topic.  I think it is a relic.

It's there to explain that why we use an explicit Whatever Asterisk:

    0..* :by(2)

instead of simply dropping out the right-hand term:

    0.. :by(2)

Because :by(2) in term position is a pair constructor, not a named
argument in the current expression.

Suggestions welcome on how to make the transition more smooth, though. :-)


Reply via email to