On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 6:10 PM Sean McAfee <eef...@gmail.com> wrote: > > the main point of my message was about the R metaoperator and the > associativity of the operator it creates.
OK. Fwiw this was something I didn't know, or had forgotten, and I find it delightful. The main point of *my* comment was that I didn't -- and still don't -- understand why the associativity switch is relevant to the result. I'd appreciate you explaining that. > the difference you mention is indeed exactly why .. works but ... doesn't. What I was thinking was that `..` explains why it works, and I couldn't see how associativity was relevant. I wondered how to best convey that, and thought showing `...` as well would make that a bit clearer. Anyhow, as I said, why is associativity relevant to this working? Or were you sharing three things -- first, the joy of discovering an elegant golfing solution, second, that using an `R` with `..` is an important case for the reasons you've demonstrated, and third, that `R` reverses associativity, which is *another* way that `R` is a nicely designed metaoperator, though this latter aspect is not relevant to why it worked for the solution you came up with? -- love, raiph
