Boris Borcic wrote: > sum() *is* exactly an attractive nuisance by *appearing* to be an obvious way of > chaining strings in a list (without actually being one). But at least it fails immediately, prompting you to look in another direction. > I admit that there is a step of arguable interpretation from these recorded > facts to my diagnostic, but the latter is compatible with the facts. Your > version otoh looks more robust in the role of eg creation myth. I suppose you could call that a linguistic matter, but I don't think it's exclusively a *native* one. I suspect that only someone with a programmer's warped mind would make the leap from "sum" to "string concatenation" -- whether they were a native English speaker or not. Also I don't see that my version of events is inconsistent with the messages you quoted either -- at least not so much as to be relegated to a myth! -- Greg
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4