On Jan 24, 2008, at 23:23 , Darren Duncan wrote:
I'd be more interested in hearing what precedents if any exist in
this regard. What do other languages call the same concepts?
data Ord = LT | EQ | GT -- Haskell
--
brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sys
At 7:20 PM -0800 1/24/08, Jonathan Lang wrote:
Instead, I'll say that the idea that Order::Increase numifies to -1 is
going to take some getting used to. While I understand the reasoning
behind it, my intuition would have been to numify it to +1 for an
increase and -1 for a decrease.
I don't s
Thom Boyer wrote:
> The enumerations and the numerical values are both in correct order.
> Since "abc" is less than "xyz", "abc" cmp "xyz" is being invoked with
> its arguments in increasing order, So it returns Order::Increase. That
> numifies to -1 because that's how "less-than" is usually encod
On 2008-01-24 Thom Boyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe Gottman wrote:
> > In the definition of cmp, S29 says the function "returns
> > |Order::Increase|, |Order::Decrease|, or |Order::Same| (which
> > numify to -1, 0, +1)". Shouldn't the enumerations and their
> > numerical values be listed
At 11:37 AM -0700 1/24/08, Thom Boyer wrote:
Joe Gottman wrote:
In the definition of cmp, S29 says the function "returns
|Order::Increase|, |Order::Decrease|, or |Order::Same| (which
numify to -1, 0, +1)". Shouldn't the enumerations and their
numerical values be listed in the same order?
Joe Gottman wrote:
In the definition of cmp, S29 says the function "returns
|Order::Increase|, |Order::Decrease|, or |Order::Same| (which numify
to -1, 0, +1)". Shouldn't the enumerations and their numerical values
be listed in the same order?
Joe Gottman
The enumerations and the numerical
> BEGIN (right now at compile time)
> UNITCHECK (at end of this compilation unit)
> CHECK (at end of main compilation)
>(compile time finishes)
>...time passes...
>(run time starts)
> INIT
> (main starts running)
> ENTER (every block entry)
> START (f
