Terry Reedy enlightened us with: > Are you claiming that including a reference to the more humanly readable > representation of a function (its source code) somehow detracts from the > beauty of the function concept? Nope. > Or are you claiming that binding a function to a name rather than > some other access reference (like a list slot) somehow detracts from > its conceptual beauty? Nope. > Is so, would you say the same about numbers? Nope. I was under the (apparently very wrong) impression (don't ask my why) that something like the example that Paul Rubin gave wouldn't be possible. Now that I've learned that, I take back what I've said. His code is more beautyful IMO ;-) Sybren -- The problem with the world is stupidity. Not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself? Frank Zappa
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