Is there something for perl analogous to the sort of formal presentation
seen in e.g., Robin Milner's "Definition of Standard ML" ?
Is there any confluence between things perl and things found in the
literature on partial evaluation (e.g., John Launchbury's thesis, papers
etc.) ?
Thanks!
-
Hugh
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of Mark J. Reed
>Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 2:05 PM
>To: Jonathan Worthington
>Cc: David Green; Perl6
>Subject: Re: Idea: infer types of constants
>
>On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Jonathan Worthington
>-Original Message-
>From: Mark A. Biggar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 11:22 PM
>To: Miller, Hugh
>Cc: Moritz Lenz; p6l
>Subject: Re: cross operator and empty list
>
>Miller, Hugh wrote:
>>> From: Moritz Lenz [mailto:[EMAI
>-Original Message-
>From: Moritz Lenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 10:37 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: p6l
>Subject: Re: cross operator and empty list
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Technically the Cartesian cross operator doesn't have an
>identity value.
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of Mark J. Reed
>Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 4:26 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; perl6-language@perl.org
>Subject: Re: Nomenclature Question - BEGIN etc.
>
>but "tag"
>for the keyword feels right to me. W
The inevitable question - why not support Polish Notation or Reverse
Polish ? Well known to be easier to use, since it involves no
ambiguities in regard to association, is notationally clearer (not
needing parentheses). Seems to make it easier to analyze what one might
want to mean by
[op] (p1 p2
