Take a look at the page to which Damian provided a link. You'll find
that XOR does indeed correspond to the definition being used by Perl
6, as well as the natural language meaning. What other languages call
XOR is actually an "odd parity check".
As I suggested above, I think that Perl 6 already
Mark J. Reed wrote:
All of which is just by way of agreeing with Jon: formal logic is not
the primary motivator behind Perl's design. So while it should be
considered, it's not a knockout punch to say "but logic doesn't work
that way."
I think another thing to consider is a survey of the variou
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Minimiscience wrote:
> I don't think natural language -- especially the abomination that is English
> -- is the best guide for understanding logical operations (why, yes, I *do*
> speak Lojban; how did you know?).
To which Jon Lang replied:
> You're aware that Pe
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Minimiscience wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2009, at 5:51 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
>>
>> Perl 6's approach to xor is consistent with the linguistic sense of
>> 'xor' ("You may have a soup (x)or a salad (x)or a cocktail"), and also
>> with the IEEE 91 standard for logic gates.
On Jun 22, 2009, at 5:51 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
Perl 6's approach to xor is consistent with the linguistic sense of
'xor' ("You may have a soup (x)or a salad (x)or a cocktail"), and also
with the IEEE 91 standard for logic gates.
I don't think natural language -- especially the abomination th
Damian Conway wrote:
Perl 6's approach to xor is consistent with the linguistic sense of
'xor' ("You may have a soup (x)or a salad (x)or a cocktail"), and also
with the IEEE 91 standard for logic gates. See:
http://ozark.hendrix.edu/~burch/logisim/docs/2.1.0/libs/gates/xor.html
for a concis
Perl 6's approach to xor is consistent with the linguistic sense of
'xor' ("You may have a soup (x)or a salad (x)or a cocktail"), and also
with the IEEE 91 standard for logic gates. See:
http://ozark.hendrix.edu/~burch/logisim/docs/2.1.0/libs/gates/xor.html
for a concise explanation of both t
I had a bit of a problem when first encountering xor with more than
two operands as well. It made sense after I thought about it
linguistically instead of mathematically. When speaking people often
use a string of "or"s to mean "pick one and only one of these choices,
the the exclusion of all other
S03 describes ^^ as a "short‐circuit exclusive‐or" operator which
returns true if & only if exactly one operand is true, short
circuiting after encountering two true values. However, this
definition is only consistent with the mathematical definition of XOR
when the operation is being perf
