in reply to Re^3: (almost) foldl
in thread (almost) foldl

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.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: (almost) foldl
by ikegami (Pope) 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".