Mark Adam writes: > Easy: dict should have a (user substitutable) collision function that > is called in these cases. "I smell overengineering." > This would allow significant functionality with practically no > cost. We already have that functionality if we want it; just define an appropriate mapping class. I don't need or want it, so I can ignore it, but I suspect to get anywhere with this proposal you're going to need to show that this "significant functionality" needs to be in syntax.
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