Re: .chars, .bytes, etc.

HaloO, Juerd wrote: wolverian skribis 2005-09-24 13:45 (+0300): Why not define .chars like this: Context Return value itemamount of units listunits themselves I still have my objections to this outside-in flow of type information. Originally I thought that

Re: .chars, .bytes, etc.

Hi, please configure your e-mail client to use (greater-than, space) for quoting, if possible. It currently uses (greater-than). TSa skribis 2005-09-26 13:43 (+0200): Why not define .chars like this: Context Return value itemamount of units listunits

Re: .chars, .bytes, etc.

HaloO, Juerd wrote: Can you explain please what outside-in means to you? TSa wrote: BTW, does everybody expect more than one prefix numerifyer beeing redundant or is there an idea of (+ (+ @foo)) beeing modelled Juerd answered: It's providing context to something that was already

.chars, .bytes, etc.

Hi all, After some thinking it occured to me that the current way of defining .chars, .bytes and .elems (and whatever else there are) doesn't make any sense to me. In pugs at least they currently return the amount of units in question - in any context! Why not define .chars like this:

Re: .chars, .bytes, etc.

wolverian skribis 2005-09-24 13:45 (+0300): Why not define .chars like this: Context Return value itemamount of units listunits themselves Agreed, of course. Originally I thought that .elems and .chars were symmetric and both should behave the same