What's really odd is that document links to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_disjunction which ends up
stating that chained xors are associative and commutative, meaning
that instead of acting as one(), it counts parity.
Rob
On 5/9/05, David Landgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jonathan Wo
Jonathan Worthington wrote:
"Juerd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You both use "iff". What does that mean?
I believe it's to be read "if and only if".
Yes, but that doesn't explain what it means. Rather than me try to
explain it (poorly)...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if
David
"Juerd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You both use "iff". What does that mean?
I believe it's to be read "if and only if".
Jonathan
On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 02:04:45AM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Juerd skribis 2005-05-07 1:23 (+0200):
: > Perl 5's perlop says: "It cannot short circuit, of course." Can
: > someone explain why it cannot?
:
: I was confused. It is entirely obvious why it can't.
On the other hand, one(...) semantics ca
Juerd skribis 2005-05-07 1:23 (+0200):
> Perl 5's perlop says: "It cannot short circuit, of course." Can
> someone explain why it cannot?
I was confused. It is entirely obvious why it can't.
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
http:/
Trewth Seeker wrote:
> Mark A. Biggar wrote:
> > Trewth Seeker wrote:
> > > In this case, we are dealing with '^^', a meaningless
> > > unpronounceable symbol.
Caret caret.
> > > Oh, but wait ... we also spell it 'xor',
When reading code, it's probably read as xor, but when discussing syntax
it
Here's the same message, with less annoying word wrapping. (Especially
useful for mailers that show different levels of quotes in different
colours.)
Trewth Seeker wrote:
> Mark A. Biggar wrote:
> > Trewth Seeker wrote:
> > > I see here another case of a common erroneous approach to
> > > problem
Oops, this should have been redirected to perl6-language@perl.org, so
I'm doing that now.
--- Trewth Seeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 13:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Trewth Seeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Pugs 6.2.0 released.
>
--- "Mark A. Biggar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I see here another case of a common erroneous approach to
> > problem-solving. People are trying to enumerate definitions to
> impose
> > on something, rather than starting with the thing at hand and
> > exhausting
Well, consider expressions with xor that only contain values 1 and 0.
What should "1 xor 1 xor 1" return? Least surprise would suggest
that it should be 1 not 0. I was ignoring the fact that non-zero values perk
through (which is not very useful in the "xor" case, unlike that for "or" or
"and"
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 07:29:35AM -0700, Mark A. Biggar wrote:
> Except that xor or ^^ is only a binary operation, there is no
> "xor(p1,p2,...)", only "p1 xor p2 xor ..." which can really only be
> understood if you add () to disambiguate the order that the binary ops
> are performed. Fortunat
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see here another case of a common erroneous approach to
problem-solving. People are trying to enumerate definitions to impose
on something, rather than starting with the thing at hand and
exhausting any clues it may provide before moving on. This can lead to
serious an
I see here another case of a common erroneous approach to
problem-solving. People are trying to enumerate definitions to impose
on something, rather than starting with the thing at hand and
exhausting any clues it may provide before moving on. This can lead to
serious and, in hindsight, embarras
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 03:50:38AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> I am delighted to report that the first major milestone of Pugs, version
> 6.2.0, has been released to CPAN:
Autrijus and everyone else who has been working on Pugs,
As someone who has been following the Perl6 lists for years, I'd l
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 07:15:48AM -0400, John Macdonald wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 April 2005 23:46, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> > No, I'm afraid I haven't messed up my math. Integer-xor is &infix:<+^> .
> > Array-of-bits-xor is &infix:<~^> . I'm specifically talking about
> > &infix:, which "Perl
On Tuesday 12 April 2005 23:46, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:13:18PM -0400, John Macdonald wrote:
> > On Tuesday 12 April 2005 22:36, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> > > It's entirely possible that I have my mathematics messed up here,
> > > but C doesn't seem to me to be enti
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 04:15:35PM -0400, Matt Fowles wrote:
> Autrijus~
>
> On Apr 12, 2005 3:50 PM, Autrijus Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * `xor` and `^^` now short-circuits
>
> How does this work? I thought xor /had/ to evaluate both sides.
That's what I get for staying up too late wh
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:13:18PM -0400, John Macdonald wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 April 2005 22:36, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> > It's entirely possible that I have my mathematics messed up here,
> > but C doesn't seem to me to be entirely associative, at least not
> > as I commonly think of associat
On Tuesday 12 April 2005 22:36, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 09:15:13PM -0400, John Macdonald wrote:
> > On Tuesday 12 April 2005 20:45, Darren Duncan wrote:
> > > At 8:27 PM -0400 4/12/05, John Macdonald wrote:
> > > >The mathematical definition of xor for two arguments is "
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 09:15:13PM -0400, John Macdonald wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 April 2005 20:45, Darren Duncan wrote:
> > At 8:27 PM -0400 4/12/05, John Macdonald wrote:
> > >The mathematical definition of xor for two arguments is "true if
> > >exactly one argument is true, false otherwise".
> >
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 05:45:24PM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote:
> At 8:27 PM -0400 4/12/05, John Macdonald wrote:
> >The mathematical definition of xor for two arguments is "true if
> >exactly one argument is true, false otherwise".
>
> Yes.
>
> >When that gets
> >generalized to multiple arguments
On Tuesday 12 April 2005 20:45, Darren Duncan wrote:
> At 8:27 PM -0400 4/12/05, John Macdonald wrote:
> >The mathematical definition of xor for two arguments is "true if
> >exactly one argument is true, false otherwise".
>
> Yes.
>
> >When that gets
> >generalized to multiple arguments it means
Darren Duncan writes:
> At 8:27 PM -0400 4/12/05, John Macdonald wrote:
> >The mathematical definition of xor for two arguments is "true if
> >exactly one argument is true, false otherwise".
>
> Yes.
>
> >When that gets
> >generalized to multiple arguments it means "true if an odd number
> >of th
At 8:27 PM -0400 4/12/05, John Macdonald wrote:
The mathematical definition of xor for two arguments is "true if
exactly one argument is true, false otherwise".
Yes.
When that gets
generalized to multiple arguments it means "true if an odd number
of the arguments are true, false otherwise".
Is this
On Tuesday 12 April 2005 19:18, Andrew Savige wrote:
> It does. At least according to "Perl 6 and Parrot Essentials" book,
> page 36 it does (I couldn't find details on xor operator in S03).
> I added some xor tests which Autrijus fixed. I'm worried now that
> my tests may be wrong. On page 36 it s
Andrew Savige writes:
> --- Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Autrijus~
> >
> > On Apr 12, 2005 3:50 PM, Autrijus Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > * `xor` and `^^` now short-circuits
> >
> > How does this work? I thought xor /had/ to evaluate both sides.
>
> It does. At least acco
--- Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Autrijus~
>
> On Apr 12, 2005 3:50 PM, Autrijus Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * `xor` and `^^` now short-circuits
>
> How does this work? I thought xor /had/ to evaluate both sides.
It does. At least according to "Perl 6 and Parrot Essentials"
Autrijus~
On Apr 12, 2005 3:50 PM, Autrijus Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * `xor` and `^^` now short-circuits
How does this work? I thought xor /had/ to evaluate both sides.
Matt
--
"Computer Science is merely the post-Turing Decline of Formal Systems Theory."
-???
I am delighted to report that the first major milestone of Pugs, version
6.2.0, has been released to CPAN:
http://wagner.elixus.org/~autrijus/dist/Perl6-Pugs-6.2.0.tar.gz
SIZE (Perl6-Pugs-6.2.0.tar.gz) = 642482
MD5 (Perl6-Pugs-6.2.0.tar.gz) = 8d5438d49db872ffe2394fd4995d335b
It repres
29 matches
Mail list logo
