On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Alan Isaac alan.is...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't like the `apply` proposal as well as the `sequence` proposal,
but it points to the same issue, even if it offers a less general solution.
The existence of the issue is the reason for proposing a new primitive.
Is
I've had a realization that maybe point #2 isn't entirely a
showstopper. The reasoning being that the argument/first-class value
impedance mismatch in NetLogo is actually already a limitation of tasks
(e.g. `(run (task [crt ?1 ?2]) 1 [ pen-down ])` does not compile), so
adding an `apply` that
Is there any sympathy for this?
There is; I agree that this is a desirable thing to have in the
language. However, I fear that the addition would be far from trivial,
unfortunately. Here some big issues that I see with implementing this
primitive:
*1) Primitives are not first-class
see also https://github.com/NetLogo/NetLogo/issues/539
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
netlogo-devel group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to netlogo-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more
On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 6:59:01 PM UTC-4, Seth Tisue wrote:
see also https://github.com/NetLogo/NetLogo/issues/539
I don't like the `apply` proposal as well as the `sequence` proposal,
but it points to the same issue, even if it offers a less general solution.
The existence of the
