Hi Jonathan,
* Jonathan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-02-24 22:30]:
> So if I'm understanding you correctly, the following would be
> an example of what you're talking about:
>
> { use text; if $a > "49" { say $a } }
>
> ...with the result being the same as Perl5's 'if $a gt "49" {
> say $a }
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Doug McNutt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don't even think about parsing = -$x**2; so that it returns a positive
> result.
Okay, going way off on a tangent here, but I don't think the Perl
interpretation is quite as obviously correct as you think it is;
there's
At 17:06 +0100 3/20/08, TSa wrote:
>BTW, do we have a unary multiplikative inversion operator?
>That is 1/ as prefix or **-1 as postfix? Perhaps .inv as method?
>Do we have .neg for additive inversion?
There certainly is the unary minus even though it is badly interpreted in some
languages, thank
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 05:06:00PM +0100, TSa wrote:
> BTW, do we have a unary multiplikative inversion operator?
> That is 1/ as prefix or **-1 as postfix?
Well, 1/ looks like a pretty good prefix. :)
Except it's not really first class. This ain't Haskell...
As for **-1, I'd suspect that of be
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 11:03:11AM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: > > Besides, there is nothing that inherently
: > > associates the "/" symbol with division - it's only an ASCII
: > > approximation of fraction notation.
: >
: > We all know that ASCII is a rather limited char set but one
: > tha
HaloO,
Mark J. Reed wrote:
Sure. But that's different from saying "Ok, you can only define an /
operator for numberish things".
Well, if you adhere to the ring, field or whatever interface the
overloaded / sort of ends up being numberish anyway.
BTW, do we have a unary multiplikative inversi
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 10:01 AM, TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm, my idea is more about defining interfaces that allow to detach
> implementation of (numerical) algorithms from datatypes. E.g. the
> Euclidean algorithm to find the gcd requires division and a remainder
> that decreases in
HaloO,
Mark J. Reed wrote:
For the record, I am opposed to any restriction on operator
overloading that requires mathematical properties to hold. ANYTHING
is fair if you predeclare.
Hmm, my idea is more about defining interfaces that allow to detach
implementation of (numerical) algorithms fr
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 2:24 AM, David Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interestingly, BASIC has gone the other direction --
> at least, Visual BASIC uses + for addition and & for concatenation;
> I'm guessing this happened when VB got "variant" types that could hold
> either numbers or strin
