Subject: can I just tell you - I dropped 20 lbs

From: Doc Oz Recommends <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:05:50 -0700

DocOz | Weekly Weigh-In |

What I did. | Things I ate | Pounds I lost

WooHooooo . . .

Its been 1 month and Im down 25 lbs.

Cant believe it Ive been struggling for so long. 

Then I saw a Doc Oz episode that changed my life.

Doc Oz Episode => http://www.nanotuphet.com/droz/show/view/clip.shtml
[ #528 ]

This solution was perfect for me. I have a life, a job, kids and bills.
I cant always eat all organic and sometimes Im too tired to hit the gym.

Do Oz gave me a way to melt fat while
eating the same and without working out.

-
=
;
'
To stop further notifications - write Alert Center Notifications - 1400 South Jama
Goddard, KS 67052 - or visit http://www.nanotuphet.com/9gfse/45hgy/s3r5.3h6rd
-
-
=
/

 the popular impression that Josh "scared" people out of closures all by himself. I'm sure he'd be flattered by your impression of his superpowers as well!  to mention that you either don't seem to understand the meaning of "fud", or you never actually listened to Josh's meticulous and well-reasoned dismantling of the closures  just stands for fear, uncertainty and doubt - I think that quite clearly expresses the tone of Josh Bloch's talk which I also happen to agree is well-argued and reasoned etc. If you see the edits, I didn't originally put fud should say I put it back in because I worry that FUD will be spread about scala and I only say that this is similar to what Bloch did in his presentation. (Where one of his arguments was "why not just use scala")   BGGA proposal had some heavyweights behind it. Sitting from where I am, it seemed like Josh Bloch's opinions counted a large part in its rejection. I may of course be wrong - but with the respect he is held in, I think is hugely
   question was mentioned in Martin Odersky's opening talk at indeed, I was in the first row, cringing    love about Scala, is that you don't have to understand it's complex type system to do simple and elegant things. it's syntax can be daunting, but it assures you one thing, there is no "magic" e.g. the magic is part of the language, it's a very brave and smart approach I think, you have a language that can create new DSLs and new mini languages within itself, yes, with the wrong hands Scala can be a very fine addition to your Italian dinner, but once you get used to it, it's an amazing language "closed as not constructive"  this question be "not constructive" when it led to @MartinOdersky reevaluating Scala usability and making its documentation system hide type system details, not to mention an I think a solution that would work at least as well is more explanations in the docs. I wouldn't find the signatures so intimidating, if it weren't for the fact that most methods (and even
  most classes) don't have more than a single sentence describing their purpose and operation.  The final Scala 2.8 release has a mechanism like the one I described. If you look up BitSet in the scaladocs you find: def map [B] (f: (Int)  B) : BitSet[B] [use case] Builds a new collection by applying a function to all "usability improvement" would be to list all implicit definitions, much like Haskell docs list instances of a type class, or like you already list subclasses of a class. I see no (obvious) way to find out this information, without browsing sources I think using better names also helps. I don't think 'bf' is a good name for the implicit parameter. I read the book and, if I understood correctly, probably 'builder' would be a better name. bad naming is a common sin across the FP community. love this guy: Smart, humble and straight to the point. s are often used to simulate type classes; it might be best to try to automatically detect that usage and then show the implicit par
 am in a smaller font (or similar). If not possible, maybe have an annotation that tells that a particular implicit is not of interest to API users.