Re: [Crm114-general] a little bug

[Sean B. Z. <se...@gr...>]

My vote's for the square brackets.  I think it makes more
sense given the definitions of the parens/brackets.  It also
eliminates the dependence on argument order, which was
probably one reason for introducing the ()/[] syntax in the
first place, although that is just a guess...

Cheers,
Sean

Bill Yerazunis wrote:
> 
>    From: Blu <bl...@da...>
> 
>    > Blu: nope, new bug.
>    >
>    > The question is this: which _is_ the bug?  Should UNION modify it's
>    > first arg, not modify it, or what?
>    >
>    > Or perhaps it should be
>    >
>    >    UNION (:outvar:)  (:in1: :in2: :in3:...)
>    >
> 
>    IMHO it is clearer than how it is now, but maybe it should be
> 
>            UNION (:outvar:) [:in1: :in2: :in3:...]
> 
>    to keep the consistence of the language.
> 
>    Blu.
> 
> Hmmm... interesting point.
> 
>  - (:var:) supposedly means "use this var as input".
> 
>  - [:var:] supposedly means "use this var as the domain of action".
> 
> Well, in any case, I did go ahead and change it to the former form
> 
>    union (:out:) (:in1: :in2: ....)
> 
> but it's literally only three characters to change to make it into
> 
>    union (:out:) [:in1: :in2: ....]
> 
> This change will apply to both UNION and INTERSECT.
> 
> What do you all think ... Parenthesis or Boxes?
> 
> (please do vote on this)
> 
>             -Bill Yerazunis
>