On Thu, Jul 13, 2000 at 09:15:46AM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Mark Favas <m.favas@per.dem.csiro.au>: > > I'd like to endorse Ken's idea very strongly - and suggest the name > > "plait" (which can clearly operate on 2, 3, 4, or more strands - and can > > produce beautiful effects... > plait() is *good*. Hmm... 'plait'. I don't even know what that means. I've read it before, but don't know what it means... something like 'cloth' or 'plaid' ?. And it sounds like 'plate'. I seriously prefer 'marry()', because it's widely known what marriage is. Also, it is more descriptive of what it should do: it shouldn't produce [1,4,2,5,3,6], but [(1,4),(2,5),(3,6)], or it's useless for tuple-unpacking in for-loops. And to hell with religious objections<1.1 wink> Actually, I try to respect other people's religions, having none myself, but I seriously think religion has no place in language design. A UNIX machine has processes, and those processes have children. But those child-processes have only a single parent! Did anyone ever question that ? Marry() is descriptive, and a common term, and if people refuse to marry() more than two lists, that's their choice. It's perfect. -- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
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