On 12/11/05, Maximilian Wilson <wilson.max at gmail.com> wrote: > > Have you played around with Gump? The CTM book suggests in several places > that sufficiently-common idioms be given linguistic support, and I've heard > people on this list suggest that e.g. some kinds of operator overloading > (arithmetic on imaginary numbers) are best done with Gump rather than > extending Oz itself, but I've never gotten deep enough into Gump to figure > out how to do it. I've been trying to figure out a good response to this, and the best I can come up with are: "Stack overflow: I don't think we're in Kanas anymore." "Parse error, which crushed under house."