Damian Conway wrote:
Larry wrote:
On the other hand, I could see an argument that said anyone who
doesn't know what .arity means shouldn't be writing routines that
depend on it...
That was more or less my line of thought.
Now, I think I'll dare claim my English is not exactly bad for a 21
--- Steffen Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Damian Conway wrote:
Larry wrote:
On the other hand, I could see an argument that said anyone who
doesn't know what .arity means shouldn't be writing routines that
depend on it...
That was more or less my line of thought.
Now, I
--- Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Steffen Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Damian Conway wrote:
Larry wrote:
On the other hand, I could see an argument that said anyone who
doesn't know what .arity means shouldn't be writing routines
that
depend on it...
That was
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 04:38:51PM +0100, Steffen Mueller wrote:
: Damian Conway wrote:
: Larry wrote:
:
: On the other hand, I could see an argument that said anyone who
: doesn't know what .arity means shouldn't be writing routines that
: depend on it...
:
: That was more or less my line of
Larry Wall wrote:
[...]
[I wrote:]
: maybe it's because I don't think a
: function's arity is quite the same as it's *minimum* number of
: parameters? I mean, it makes sense in a functional language... but you
: don't have functions with a variable number of arguments there.
Sure, but one
Austin Hastings wrote:
Request: Change .req method of Routine to .arity
I rather like this idea.
Damian
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 10:27:24AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
: Austin Hastings wrote:
:
: Request: Change .req method of Routine to .arity
:
: I rather like this idea.
I'm not attached to .req. But .arity will be opaque to many
non-mathematicians. Plus, it's throwing out minimum part of
Larry wrote:
On the other hand, I could see an argument that said anyone who
doesn't know what .arity means shouldn't be writing routines that
depend on it...
That was more or less my line of thought.
Damian
