Re: function in an expression

> Sorry, but I'm afraid you don't understand. This might be a better way to
> express what you want the code to do, but my point is that this code
does
> something very specific and well-defined while the original doesn't.

That's what I want to say (I used bad words)

> it is not just "a better way to write the same code". This code works
> reliably, while the original doesn't.

Absolutely.