Barry A. Warsaw <bwarsaw@beopen.com>: > Range literals I can see as being worth it. I wonder if parallel for > loops can't be handled more gracefully with a function -- isn't it > just a nice wrapper around a specific call to map() anyway? > > List comprehensions do seem to need more syntactic support, but the > ambiguity of the semantics bothers me. I agree with both evaluations, and have just posted a proposal to replace parallel for-loops with a new data constructor. (I still like list comprehensions. But they need to be cleaner.) -- <a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr">Eric S. Raymond</a> Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.... Do not be frightened from this inquiry from any fear of its consequences. If it ends in the belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise... -- Thomas Jefferson, in a 1787 letter to his nephew
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