Michael Lazzaro wrote:
I worry that C sounds too much like something class-related,
and would confuse people. What about C or something? Decent
thesaurus entries for include:
assign, classify, comb, compartmentalize, discriminate, distribute,
group, order, segregate, sift, winnow, amputate, c
Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Conrow) writes:
>I'm not seeing it. My problem, or is it not being mirrored yet?
I'm reading it via NNTP.
Right, I've got it now. Don't know why I didn't see it there before.
-- Tim
I'm not seeing it. My problem, or is it not being mirrored yet?
-- Tim
Brent Dax wrote:
>
> If we have 'and', 'or' and 'xor', can we have 'dor' (defined or) to be a
> low-precedence version of this?
Oh man. If we've gone so far as 'dor', why not make it 'doh' :-)
print stomach_state @beer,@donuts doh "burp!!!"
--
-- Tim Conrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
here was a long thread that touched on this in the context
of tristate logic in discussion of and around RFC 263, I think.
--
-- Tim Conrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
behavior wasn't consistent
> with that. Not that I think NaN != NaN is a particularly good idea, but
> consistency with other languages may be. If NaN != NaN, then his
> example is correct.
Thank you Brent. Brevity and clarity; what concepts! I must try them
sometime.
-- Tim Conrow
hat is ugly, non-intuitive and ugly; and non-intuitive too. But
inconsistency with a long accepted standard is also ungood. Perhaps we
need to write it thus:
print "Inflation rate: " and $inflation = +<>
while $inflation.isnan;
or some such?
-- Tim Conrow
1(x) = ln(1 + x)
expm1(x) = exp(x) - 1
to deal accurately and quickly with the special case where x<<1. This may not be
useful in an environment of pseudo-infinite precision, unless speed begins to
matter alot. Maybe they could be called automagically when the compiler sees
something like the
Tim Conrow wrote:
>
> Tom Christiansen wrote:
> > Perhaps what you're truly looking for is a generalized tainting mechanism.
>
> Sounds cool, but I have only the vaguest idea what you (may) mean. Pointers?
> RFCs? Examples? Hints?
Sorry for the clutter, but I d
Tom Christiansen wrote:
> Perhaps what you're truly looking for is a generalized tainting mechanism.
Sounds cool, but I have only the vaguest idea what you (may) mean. Pointers?
RFCs? Examples? Hints?
--
-- Tim Conrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
nly cases I've been able to think of are
> > JAPHs or code samples.
>
> "too painful" is, of course, a judgment call. I do use the
> read/unpack/modify/pack/print cycle a fair amount dealing with image data.
> I guess I'd say working around RFC 258 might be an
(confession: I forgot about "U"
in v1 of the RFC)), C, C, string-context bitwise ops plus
C and C create "packed strings". If Unicode is commonly acquired or
manipulated by any of those and meant to stay human readable, then there may be
a conflict.
--
-- Tim Conrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
convey that the additional checking is only done
when explicitly invoked via C and/or C. Perhaps I should make that more explicit. In a sense, it's already
proposed to be sort of an extension, just one which is provided to everyone.
Everyone's short of tuits, but I'd love to see some hint of where you think this
causes problems.
--
-- Tim Conrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
13 matches
Mail list logo
