I noticed that for converting numbers to integers and back there are the
named operators iton and ntoi, but for conversions to and from PMCs the
set operator is used.
Should we make all conversions have their own ops (e.g., pton, ptoi, ...) or
should we push all conversions into the set
David --
I noticed that for converting numbers to integers and back there are the
named operators iton and ntoi, but for conversions to and from PMCs the
set operator is used.
Should we make all conversions have their own ops (e.g., pton, ptoi, ...) or
should we push all conversions into
On Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 08:46:56AM -0500, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
I still support the idea, but would like Simon / Dan to chime in.
I vote for implicit set, too.
--
Last week I forgot how to ride a bicycle. -- Steven Wright
At 09:56 PM 12/29/2001 -1000, David Lisa Jacobs wrote:
I noticed that for converting numbers to integers and back there are the
named operators iton and ntoi, but for conversions to and from PMCs the
set operator is used.
Should we make all conversions have their own ops (e.g., pton, ptoi, ...)
