On Monday, January 29, 2024 5:18 AM, Edward Welbourne wrote:
>rsbec...@nexbridge.com (27 January 2024 23:45) wrote:
>> My take on it is that +:= (because of the : ) means that you have to
resolve
>everything at that point.
>
>Surely it could equally mean: fully expand the right-hand side immediatel
rsbec...@nexbridge.com (27 January 2024 23:45) wrote:
> My take on it is that +:= (because of the : ) means that you have to resolve
> everything at that point.
Surely it could equally mean: fully expand the right-hand side
immediately, append to the left-hand variable, preserving its type if
se
On Saturday, January 27, 2024 4:14 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
>On Sat, 2024-01-27 at 15:52 -0500, rsbec...@nexbridge.com wrote:
>> > I'm interested in peoples' opinions about which of these two
>> > implementations they would feel to be more "intuitive" or "correct".
>> > Also please consider issues of
On Sat, 2024-01-27 at 15:52 -0500, rsbec...@nexbridge.com wrote:
> > I'm interested in peoples' opinions about which of these two
> > implementations they would feel to be more "intuitive" or
> > "correct". Also please consider issues of "action at a distance"
> > where a variable is assigned in o
On Saturday, January 27, 2024 3:33 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
>On Mon, 2024-01-22 at 08:15 -0500, Paul Smith wrote:
>> Let's step back and I'll try to think more clearly about this.
>
>Sorry for the delay in replying.
>
>I can see that I was thinking about this one way but there's another way to
>look
