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. :-)
Cheers,
Audrey
