[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: New array type? (was: 'table' as fallback for tables)
- From: "Soni L." <fakedme@...>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 11:42:07 -0300
On 08/07/16 06:51 AM, Thomas Jericke wrote:
Also, while I think your example is legit, I don't think it's such a
common use case that it deserves its own operator.
The current implementation of # could easily just be moved to a
function of the table library.
#"a string"
vs
table.len("a string")
--
Thomas
--
Disclaimer: these emails may be made public at any given time, with or without reason. If you don't agree with this, DO NOT REPLY.
- References:
- Re: New array type? (was: 'table' as fallback for tables), Soni L.
- Re: New array type? (was: 'table' as fallback for tables), Tim Hill
- Re: New array type? (was: 'table' as fallback for tables), Coda Highland
- Re: New array type? (was: 'table' as fallback for tables), steve donovan
- Re: New array type? (was: 'table' as fallback for tables), Joseph Manning
- Re: New array type? (was: 'table' as fallback for tables), Dirk Laurie
- Re: New array type? (was: 'table' as fallback for tables), William Ahern
- Re: New array type? (was: 'table' as fallback for tables), Dirk Laurie
- Re: New array type? (was: 'table' as fallback for tables), William Ahern
- Re: New array type? (was: 'table' as fallback for tables), Ross Berteig
- Re: New array type? (was: 'table' as fallback for tables), William Ahern
- Re: New array type? (was: 'table' as fallback for tables), Dirk Laurie
- Re: New array type? (was: 'table' as fallback for tables), Thomas Jericke
