Even when you've been utterly, utterly trumped on, you still can't stop your beak from flapping. I) Instead of, perhaps, trying to understand the poeme, or at least learn something from the experience of making a colossal wally of yourself, your mind is instead fixated on what OTHER PEOPLE might be thinking. II) Of course nobody else reading this counts or cares. But you counted, I counted, I care, and clearly you care. I care because I want the function to be correct. Christ knows why you care. III) This poeme does not contain words. It contains parentheses, λs and variables. So yes, the difference between 8 parentheses and 9 parentheses clearly is more relevant than words. I'm fairly stunned that you can't see that. Why would you want to waffle on about words in evaluating this poeme?

I think I'll ask nentwined for the ability to vote on comments based on their wry humor so I can give this a 10.

Giving every poem on poemranker the same vote, no matter what vote, affects nothing relatively.

Yes, and it’s not really about death, except as a consideration in deciding how to live.

If there were 99 instead of 9, nobody reading this would count or care. They probably don’t care anyway, but rather consider the gentle swat of Dovina and the hard lash of -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I., then decide which they like best. So it goes here – all about rhetoric. We are wordmongers and consider them gold. If it were not so, I would not have pulled a rockmage 10 for a silly poem about a hawk dining at the city dump, or kudos from richa for a raven full of crap. Not so, you will no doubt say, the difference between 8 and 9 - the number 1 - is more real than words. But even if it is, the salesman wins, and we who wallow in reason, write poetry for relief.

This is NOT the recipe for pumkin fritata? Damn.

thank you i think it is truly original too.

You don't have the faintest idea what this does. There are two opening brackets on the second line for a reason. Your suggestion is equivalent to yanking an arrow out of a cowboy, because it looks sharp. Note only that, but THERE ARE IN FACT THE CORRECT NUMBER (9) OF BRACKETS OF EACH TYPE ANYWAY. You didn't even bother to count before you leapt in with your wrong, incorrect un-correction. You saw something you didn't understand, and you went "DEAR GOD IT'S DIFFERENT! THERE'S BEEN AN AWFUL MISTAKE!" You call this method, "Women's intuition." I call it "Being tremendously dense." Now to address your absurd suggestion that I use "your method", aka "The Ladies' method of Autocad." 1. The function definition would stretch over several useless lines for no reason, inhibit reformatting and refactoring, and be an utter waste of time. 2. I would be the laughing stock of the Lisp world. Nobody, NOBODY who writes Lisp puts closing brackets on separate lines, except people who write Autolisp tutorials. 3. Even if there had been a mistake, which there hadn't, my syntax highlighter would have caught it immediately. Fancy that: A program that does your drudgery for you, so you don't have to! Now if only there was a "Dovina-corrector" program!!!1

Thank you Quarton, high praise. Much appreciated.