Re^3: (almost) foldl

Your reply doesn't make sense. I pointed out that someone already wrote your code, and wrote it way better. The choice isn't between using a module and using no module, the choice is between using your code and using List::Util's.

Comment on Re^3: (almost) foldl

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: (almost) foldl by dk (Chaplain) on Jun 08, 2011 at 15:40 UTC
Well, actually, it's your reply that doesn't make sense. This section is obfuscation, i.e. pure fun, and not asking how to make the code better. Your statement that you pointed out that someone wrote the code is not true. Where is it? Is it your code? It's not better, because it needs an extra 0 to the list. Also, the topic clearly states "no extra modules". Yes, thank you, I know very well about List::Util, a great module. But you ignored that and answered I question I didn't ask, missing the point altogether.	[reply]
Re^5: (almost) foldl by ikegami (Patriarch) on Jun 14, 2011 at 22:37 UTC
missing the point altogether. No, you did. You mentioned noone's done it your way before, to which I pointed out that noone would do it your way. Also, the topic clearly states "no extra modules" Again missing the point. But you ignored that and answered I question I didn't ask Most people call that "commenting".	[reply]