Skip Montanaro <skip@mojam.com> suggested: > we just allow complete > statements within list constructors. The semantics would be that any > objects left on the stack at the end of the statements would constitute the > elements of the list. Is that too weird? It's too procedural, and too Forth-like. I think it's actually an advantage that the iterator clauses don't look *exactly* like their procedural counterparts, because it's less likely to fool you into thinking that you can put arbitrary statements there. Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+ University of Canterbury, | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a | Christchurch, New Zealand | wholly-owned subsidiary of USA Inc. | greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz +--------------------------------------+
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