> I highly doubt that it works differently from the other patterns.

Is that a "no"?

> It's called "pigment_pattern" because it takes a pigment and turns it
> into a pattern. Makes perfect sense to me..."pattern" wouldn't, though.
> (What kind of pattern? What's this pigment doing here?)

It doesn't make sense to me... Especially when used in a "normal {}"
statement. "pattern" makes sense, since, well, it is a pattern. The pigment
would be there, being patternized... Hey! Maybe the keyword should be
"patternize"... OK, I'll shut up now.

Post a reply to this message