[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?

To: Michael Vanier <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?
From: Robert Feldt <address@hidden>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 08:01:44 +0200 (MEST)
Cc: address@hidden, <address@hidden>
In-reply-to: <200306142234.h5EMY7709581@orchestra.cs.caltech.edu>
Sender: address@hidden

On Sat, 14 Jun 2003, Michael Vanier wrote:

> Ruby seems to have done something like this, but (IMO) went overboard in
> the syntax.
>
Can you elaborate on why/where you think Ruby goes "overboard". Just
curious...

Regards,

Robert Feldt

Follow-Ups:
- Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?
  - From: Ryan Davis <ryand@zenspider.com>
- Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?
  - From: Michael Vanier <mvanier@cs.caltech.edu>

References:
- Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?
  - From: Michael Vanier <mvanier@cs.caltech.edu>

Prev by Date: Syntax design as a discipline (was Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?)
Next by Date: Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?
Previous by thread: Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?
Next by thread: Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread