Aaron writes:
> COME FROM is very different, and (as with much of Intercal) was created
> specifically to be obtuse. Discussing it as if it's a useful feature
> tends to creep me out because I get the feeling someone might actually
> put it in a language I care about.
I feel the same way about
Felix Gallo wrote:
Aaron writes:
Ok, this is starting to look like people speaking seriously about using
Intercal's COME FROM (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ComeFrom)... can we just
step back and take a deep breath of AIR please? Seriously, this is
starting to creep me out.
Aspect Oriented Program
At 3:57 PM -0400 8/18/04, Felix Gallo wrote:
Dan writes:
sub foo :come_from('+', int, int) {}
One problem with MMD in general, and return specifically, is
'what happens if multiple M match the same D requirements?
Well... usually what happens is that an ambiguous function error is
thrown. I c
Aaron writes:
> Ok, this is starting to look like people speaking seriously about using
> Intercal's COME FROM (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ComeFrom)... can we just
> step back and take a deep breath of AIR please? Seriously, this is
> starting to creep me out.
In case anyone reading this is getting co
On Wed, 2004-08-18 at 15:57, Felix Gallo wrote:
> Dan writes:
> > sub foo :come_from('+', int, int) {}
>
> One problem with MMD in general, and return specifically, is
> 'what happens if multiple M match the same D requirements?
> i.e.,
That's a question, not a problem. It's easy to answer q
Dan writes:
> sub foo :come_from('+', int, int) {}
One problem with MMD in general, and return specifically, is
'what happens if multiple M match the same D requirements?
i.e.,
sub foo :come_from('+', int, int) { shift; shift builtin::+ shift };
sub bar :come_from('+', int, int) { shift; shi
At 11:33 AM -0400 8/18/04, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Wed, 2004-08-18 at 10:06, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Yep, though the error dispatch case is definitely the easy one. Where
it gets fun is:
sub foo :come_from('bar', int) {
You've created an MMD come-from
Uh... that hurts.
Yes, but imagine the p
On Wed, 2004-08-18 at 10:06, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Yep, though the error dispatch case is definitely the easy one. Where
> it gets fun is:
>
> sub foo :come_from('bar', int) {
You've created an MMD come-from
Uh... that hurts.
I think using it for type-based, switch-like dispatch would
At 6:20 PM -0400 8/17/04, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Tue, 2004-08-17 at 16:22, Felix Gallo wrote:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 04:08:34PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> 1) We're going to have MMD for functions soon
> 2) Function invocation and return continuation invocation's
> essentially identical
> 3
On Tue, 2004-08-17 at 16:22, Felix Gallo wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 04:08:34PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > 1) We're going to have MMD for functions soon
> > 2) Function invocation and return continuation invocation's
> > essentially identical
> > 3) Therefore returning from a sub/method c
Dan~
This is the coolest things I have heard all day. I am not sure that
my brain is entirely around what situations it would be useful in yet.
But it is really cool.
It seems to me that it would probably be most useful in the tail call
setting where you are just passing the result from one fun
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 04:08:34PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> 1) We're going to have MMD for functions soon
> 2) Function invocation and return continuation invocation's
> essentially identical
> 3) Therefore returning from a sub/method can do MMD return based on
> the return values
>
> Someon
1) We're going to have MMD for functions soon
2) Function invocation and return continuation invocation's
essentially identical
3) Therefore returning from a sub/method can do MMD return based on
the return values
Someone probably ought to think about what sort of syntax you might
add to a lang
13 matches
Mail list logo
