Re: wrapping functions

[Jean-Claude Wippler <jcw@...>]

Allow me to follow-up on my own post:
>How about the following (gleaned from the Icon language):
>    - in "x=(...)", comma's are passed through when the context allows it
>    - to prevent this, use "x=1(...)"
>    - that can then be generalized to "x=<N>(...)"
>I have no idea whether this fits into the language.  It basically says
>that numbers can act as extraction/projection functions.

So:
    <N>(...) 
would be equivalent to:
    {...}[<N>]

-jcw