On 15 June 1999, Jack Jansen said:
> > The same should happen as for L"foo" + " " + L"bar".
>
> This is probably the most reasonable solution. Unfortunately it breaks Marks
> truly novel suggestion that 0.join(1, 2) becomes 102, but I guess we'll have
> to live with that:-)
Careful -- it actually works this way in Perl (well, except that join
isn't a method of strings...):
$ perl -de 1
[...]
DB<2> $sep = 0
DB<3> @list = (1, 2)
DB<4> p join ($sep, @list)
102
Cool! Who needs type-checking anyways?
Greg
--
Greg Ward - software developer gward at cnri.reston.va.us
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
1895 Preston White Drive voice: +1-703-620-8990
Reston, Virginia, USA 20191-5434 fax: +1-703-620-0913
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