Syntax of &-operator
- Posted by Lutz_Heitmann at NF.MAUS.DE Apr 02, 2001
- 502 views
-P873@KI Hi Derek, DP>I'm not sure what the issue is here? As I said, I don't like the behaviour of "&". This seems strange to me: > a & b = append({a}, b) > a & b = append(a, b) being valid at the same time! > It could be coded like this: > > {a} & {b} & {c} & {d} DP>or like this ... DP> {a,b,c,d} Nope! That would eliminate the option of "&=". DP>the "old" way? What is the "new" way then? How have things changed? Replace "old" with "current". Then replace "new" with "an alternative", and you've got it! Things haven't changed, and they won't ever with so many programs and libraries up and running. DP>Are you advocating that a new function be included in Euphoria called DP>'concat' and that it should work the same as '&' operation? Not the same, of course (nothing would be gained by that!), and its name doesn't matter. In fact, it should be a single character like "@". Nobody *has* to use it but it would be faster by assuming operands to be *always* sequences. And debugging would be easier in many cases where "&" ignores the difference between atoms and sequences... Lutz.