That's a fair point since we have larger sets of breaking changes planned. And
better refactor tools planned that might allow an 0.98-to-0.99 upgrade path
Okay, I agree and will revert in a few. Sorry for the churn.
Thanks,
John.
> On Jan 21, 2017, at 3:44 AM, Jon Harper wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Ho
I found only one place in my code where I have used `subseq?`, and even there it was `swap subseq?`. 21.01.2017, 14:45, "Jon Harper" :Hi,How close is the next release ? I saw Slava's taunt on github https://github.com/factor/factor/issues/1783 :)Maybe revert it for 0.98 and go with this for 0.99 ?
Hi,
How close is the next release ? I saw Slava's taunt on github
https://github.com/factor/factor/issues/1783 :)
Maybe revert it for 0.98 and go with this for 0.99 ? Code will break
silently on this since the number of arguments is the same.
Jon
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 12:27 PM, CW Alston wro
I like it. I find that most words are more natural when their stack
effects are ( larger-part smaller-part -- ... ) and the "seq" is of
course larger than the "subseq".
2017-01-21 7:55 GMT+01:00 John Benediktsson :
> Hi,
>
> I pushed a (breaking compatibility) change to the development branch of
>
Thanks for the heads-up, John -
I would agree that your changes are a more natural locution. I use these
words a lot
in various vocabs, but I reckon it won't be too hard to adapt to this new
pattern.
Cheers,
~cw
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 10:55 PM, John Benediktsson
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I pushed a (b
