Re: [xml-dev] parsing markup with Perl

[Shlomi Fish <shlomif@shlomifish.org>]

Hi Ihe and all,

[Top-posting on purpose].

I feel that the discussion, while it certainly remained civil, took a turn to
the worse with the last message, and, furthermore, we are straying off-topic
from our already off-topic discussion. So I decided not to reply to this
message. For the record, I found that Ihe gave some good points, but there
are some points he mentioned for which I disagree or feel uncertain about.

I thank Ihe and the other participants in this discussion for the discussion I
[and hopefully other people as well] enjoyed and found insightful, but I guess
we should now move on. The new discussion about "other xyz" seems pretty
interesting too, but I think people have already said most of what I could
have said there.

Best regards,

	Shlomi Fish

On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 18:14:01 +0000
Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@shlomifish.org> wrote:
> > Hi Ihe,
> >
> 
> Hello
> 
> >>
> >> (foo o bar o baz o quux o bagel) in SML?
> >>
> >
> > I don't know SML too well, but seems like it, though having to use "o" in
> > succession may also be considered superflouos syntax.
> >
> 
> o is the SML compose operator. Function composition is what is going
> on isn't it. So how can an operator that signifies that t be
> superfluous.
> 
> Scheme has a compose operator but it is binary in its native form
> (compose foo bar) so I did not use it as an example.
> 
[SNIPPED]

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
The Case for File Swapping - http://shlom.in/file-swap

I promised, I forgot, I did not keep my promise — just shoot me, and get on
with it!

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .