<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jan 22, 2016, at 4:31 PM, Erica Sadun <<a href="mailto:erica@ericasadun.com" class="">erica@ericasadun.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div class=""><div class="" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div class=""><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">Alternatively, the argument could be made that we should just remove this splatting behavior. I haven’t heard of any super-compelling use-cases for it. Adding a sigil for this operation would expose the complexity that the behavior underlines.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class="">Use case:</div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class="">Zipping streams of arguments into tuples and then applying them through a function, and for the sake of argument, there's a big scary monster of necessity preventing you from consuming them at the same time using f($0, $1, $2, etc), so the lazy zipped tuple stream occurs at a different time/place as the consumption, which is not expecting a tuple input but n separate arguments.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>AFAICT, the difference is between:</div><div><br class=""></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>f(*$0)</div><div><br class=""></div><div>and:</div><div><br class=""></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>f($0.0, $0.1)</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I could argue very easily that the later is much more clear than the former. High arity tuples are also very uncommon.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>-Chris</div><div><br class=""></div></body></html>