[PD] Bug in lister (zexy) ?

[Mathieu Bouchard]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> Cyrille.Damez at laposte.net hat gesagt: // Cyrille.Damez at laposte.net wrote:
>> Maybe it would be safer to have the shortcut [l] be used for [list] instead of
>> [lister]
> Yes, I think so, too. [l] for [list] would be (almost) in sync with
> [f] and [symbol] (only that [l] then actually should be for [list
> append], not just for [list] without method).

Two questions:

1. why does list deserve a shortcut like that when neither [symbol] nor 
[pointer] have one?

2. how much should [list append] be like [f] in order to deserve that kind 
of favour? It can't be exactly the same because the bang required by [f] 
is confused with the empty list that would have to be stored in [l] so 
that [l] behaves like [f]. In other words, a [f] or [symbol] or [pointer] 
is like a single-inlet [pack] plus an extra cold inlet that behaves like a 
set-method of the hot inlet (except that [pack] doesn't have a set-method, 
contrary to most objects that are pack-like! consistency!)

PS: i'm looking for adjectives to say "pack-like" and 
"pack-like-with-set", in a less cumbersome way. Any ideas?

  _ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada