smuj wrote:
> So you're saying you'd like things to stay exactly as they are at the
> moment!? :-)

Not quite.  I'd like to see the effects of context spelled out more
clearly than they are; and I'd like a revision so that '..' numifies
its endpoints while a new 'to' operator doesn't.  That is, restrict
'..' to cases when you're defining a range of numbers, and use 'to' to
handle all other cases.

It might also be nice to have a stringifying version; perhaps 'be',
using the same "everything's an acronym" naming convention used by
other stringifying operators (e.g., 'lt' is "less than", 'le' is 'less
than or equal to', 'leg' is "less than, equal to, greater than") - in
this case, 'be' would be 'beginning to end'.  At the very least, this
would avoid the inevitable questions about why there isn't a
stringifying version. :)  That said, it may not be good for much more
than that.

Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang

Reply via email to