Hey. In Pugs 6.0.2 (cf. http://use.perl.org/~autrijus/journal/23093 )
I'm beginning to flesh out a signature list for primitives. It's
currently, well, quite primitive but already works with the multimethod
dispatched and the context propagator, so I'd like to call for review:
http://svn.ope
Perl 6 Summary for 2005-01-31 through 2004-02-8
All~
Welcome to yet another summary in which I will undoubtedly confuse to
homophones. Probably more than a few this week as I am a little tired.
But perhaps the alien on my window or the vampire on my monitor will
help straighten
Brock~
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:08:45 -0700, Brock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hm. I take that back... it was a silly comment to make and not very
> mathematically sound. Sorry.
>
> --Brock
>
> - Forwarded message from Brock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
>
> (a < b < c) ==> (a
Hm. I take that back... it was a silly comment to make and not very
mathematically sound. Sorry.
--Brock
- Forwarded message from Brock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:06:58 -0700
From: Brock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Autrijus Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: perl6-language@per
On 2005.02.05.20.33, Autrijus Tang wrote:
| (I've just finished the pretty printing part in Pugs, so I'll use actual
| command line transcripts below. The leading "?" does not denote boolean
| context -- it's just telling pugs to do a big-step evaluation. Also,
| boolean literals are written in t
All~
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:51:24 +0100, Miroslav Silovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >>Well, we see the same kind of thing with standard interval arithmetic:
> >>
> >>(-1, 1) * (-1, 1) = (-1, 1)
> >>(-1, 1) ** 2 = [0, 1)
> >>
> >>The reason that junctions be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, we see the same kind of thing with standard interval arithmetic:
(-1, 1) * (-1, 1) = (-1, 1)
(-1, 1) ** 2 = [0, 1)
The reason that junctions behave this way is because they don't
collapse. You'll note the same semantics don't arise in
Quantum::Entanglement (whe
Luke Palmer writes:
> Miroslav Silovic writes:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >So Pugs will evaluate that to (#f|#f), by lifting all junctions
> > >out of a multiway comparison, and treat the comparison itself as
> > >a single variadic operator that is evaluated as a chain individually.
> >
> > I
Miroslav Silovic writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >So Pugs will evaluate that to (#f|#f), by lifting all junctions
> >out of a multiway comparison, and treat the comparison itself as
> >a single variadic operator that is evaluated as a chain individually.
>
> I think this is correct, however...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yup. My mathematic intuition cannot suffer that:
4 < X < 2
to be true in any circumstances -- as it violates associativity.
If one wants to violate associativity, one should presumably *not*
use the chained comparison notation!
So Pugs will evaluate that to (#f|#f), by
10 matches
Mail list logo
