From pburns at pburns.seanet.com  Sun Apr 27 12:44:36 2008
From: pburns at pburns.seanet.com (Patrick Burns)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:44:36 +0100
Subject: [Rd] RFC:  What should ?foo do?
In-Reply-To: <4811D298.4030102@biostat.ku.dk>
References: <48110D8B.10300@stats.uwo.ca>
	<48115131.7000402@comcast.net>	<4811B9EC.3010701@stats.uwo.ca>
	<4811D298.4030102@biostat.ku.dk>
Message-ID: <48145914.8020909@pburns.seanet.com>

Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>   
>> I haven't done it, but I suspect we could introduce special behaviour 
>> for ??foo very easily.  We could even have a whole hierarchy:
>>
>> ?foo, ??foo, ???foo, ????foo, ...
>>
>>   
>>     
> Heh, that's rather nice, actually. In words, that could read
>
> ?foo: tell me about foo!
> ??foo: what can you tell me about foo?
> ???foo: what can you tell me about things like foo?
> ????foo: I don't know what I'm looking for but it might be something
> related foo?
>   

I quite like this.  It seems very intuitive to me -- just match
the number of question marks to the level of my frustration.

Pat
> You do have to be careful about messing with ?, though. I think many
> people, including me, would pretty quickly go nuts if ?par suddenly
> didn't work the way we're used to.
>
>



[Rd] RFC: What should ?foo do?
Patrick Burns