I suggested:
> > f{- x} maps to (f (- x)).
But then I mistakenly claimed:
> You can do that already with f(- x), but I can easily imagine someone using
> curly braces accidentally instead.
Alan Manuel Gloria:
> Huh? Isn't f(- x) equal to (f - x) ?
Eeek! You're absolutely right, of course. That's just f(a b) which maps to (f
a b).
But I guess that's a further argument for f{- x}. If you want f(a b), you
write that. You can currently write f(-(x)), but f{- x} does seem cleaner.
> > "An {} maps to (), {e} maps to e, and {e f} maps to (e f)."
>
> Otherwise seems ok...
That's encouraging. Okay, I'll implement these later two in the development
tree, and let's try them out to see if they're worth it.
--- David A. Wheeler
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Readable-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
