Re: Hamming minigolf post mortem

Juho Snellman <[email protected]> wrote:

> When ".." is used in the argument list for "for", it's optimized
> to not generate a list and then loop over the items. Instead one
> item is generated, the body run, then the second item generate,
> etc. This apparently only works when both arguments for ".." are
> valid numbers *or* both of them are string literals.

But why does 'print for 0 x6..~$~' work when 'print for
0 x6..$~' doesn't?  I wouldn't have expected the first one
to work with or without 'for', since ~$~ doesn't contain any
[A-Za-z0-9].
-- 
Keith C. Ivey <[email protected]>
Washington, DC