On Tue, 2001-10-09 at 22:42, Damian Conway wrote:
> Brent asked:
>
>> If we have 'and', 'or' and 'xor', can we have 'dor' (defined or) to be a
>> low-precedence version of this?
>
> I actually suggested exactly that to Larry a few weeks back.
>
> He likes the idea, but is having trouble
> Bart Lateur:
> # On Thu, 4 Oct 2001 03:22:55 -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> #
> # >Binary //
> # >
> # >The analogy to || is probably a bit too clever. My first reaction
> # >was it's some sort of weird division operator. But it's
> servicable.
> #
> # I think it's very cute. I think of it
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:42:29 +1000 (EST), Damian Conway wrote:
>Brent asked:
>
> > If we have 'and', 'or' and 'xor', can we have 'dor' (defined or) to be a
> > low-precedence version of this?
>
>I actually suggested exactly that to Larry a few weeks back.
>
>He likes the idea, but is having t
Brent asked:
> If we have 'and', 'or' and 'xor', can we have 'dor' (defined or) to be a
> low-precedence version of this?
I actually suggested exactly that to Larry a few weeks back.
He likes the idea, but is having trouble finding an acceptable name for the
operator.
Damian
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 11:49:15AM -0700, Tim Conrow wrote:
> 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,
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]
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 08:35:10AM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
> Bart Lateur:
> # On Thu, 4 Oct 2001 03:22:55 -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> #
> # >Binary //
> # >
> # >The analogy to || is probably a bit too clever. My first reaction
> # >was it's some sort of weird division operator. But it's s
Bart Lateur:
# On Thu, 4 Oct 2001 03:22:55 -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
#
# >Binary //
# >
# >The analogy to || is probably a bit too clever. My first reaction
# >was it's some sort of weird division operator. But it's servicable.
#
# I think it's very cute. I think of it as a "skewed or", wh
On Thu, 4 Oct 2001 03:22:55 -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>Binary //
>
>The analogy to || is probably a bit too clever. My first reaction
>was it's some sort of weird division operator. But it's servicable.
I think it's very cute. I think of it as a "skewed or", which is, er,
both what it bo
David M. Lloyd wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> > > Backtracking is at the heart of Logic Programming (or Declarative
> > > Programming, if you like). This is one of the 3 main programming paradigms
> > > (along with procedural and functional). The most popular Declarativ
Thus it was written in the epistle of David Nicol,
> Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> > Binary ;
> >
> > This worries me. Giving ; two meanings makes basic language parsing
> > harder, which would be fine if there was a big payoff, but there's
> > not. Just making shorthand for [[1,2,3],[4,5,6]] d
http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=71319&lastnode_id=71484
I think this would be interesting for U :")
http://www.cs.yorku.ca/Courses/3401/lectures/340198-11-27HTML/
http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/local/books/nlp-in-prolog/ch04/chapter-04-sh-1.5.
html#sh-1.5
| On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote:
|
| > > Backtracking is at the heart of Logic Program
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 08:29:10PM -0500, David Nicol wrote:
> > Binary //
> >
> > The analogy to || is probably a bit too clever. My first reaction
> > was it's some sort of weird division operator. But it's servicable.
>
> It echoes the switch from | to / within the IETF RFC syntax declarati
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Binary ;
>
> This worries me. Giving ; two meanings makes basic language parsing
> harder, which would be fine if there was a big payoff, but there's
> not. Just making shorthand for [[1,2,3],[4,5,6]] doesn't seem worth
> it. What am I missing here?
What you migh
> Or even
>
> for my $x (1..98) {
> for my $y (1..(99-$x)) {
> for my $z (1..(100-$x-$y)) {
> print "$x, $y, $z\n" if $x ** 2 = $y ** 2 + $z ** 2;
> }
> }
> }
Sure. Depending on whether you want combinations or permutations.
Damian
> "Damian" == Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Damian> Personally, I think:
Damian> foreach my $x (1..99) {
Damian> foreach my $y (1..99) {
Damian> foreach my $z (1..99) {
Damian> print "$x, $y, $z\n" if $x**2 == $y**2 + $z**2;
Damian>
> >> Backtracking:
> >>
> >> Ok, I don't get it at all. Damian, clarification?
> >
> > Nothing to clarify. Larry punted (to a later Apocalypse).
> >
> > Okay. That's a cop-out. He's basically saying that you can write
> > C and C yourself as:
>
>
On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > Backtracking is at the heart of Logic Programming (or Declarative
> > Programming, if you like). This is one of the 3 main programming paradigms
> > (along with procedural and functional). The most popular Declarative
> > language is Prolog. It is
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 06:35:51PM +1000, Jeremy Howard wrote:
> > I've been playing with Ruby, which has a similar feature. @foo is an
> > object instance variable. Inside a class definition, foo() is a
> > object method call on the current object. Outside it's a class method
> > call on the c
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 05:59:53PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
>> Hyperoperators:
>>
>> I sort of understand it, but don't really grok it. I can sort of
>> thing of ways it might eliminate the need for a few maps and
>> foreaches. Damian, might I request some clarification i
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Binary and unary dot:
>
> This makes me *very* happy. This is probably the best thing I've
> heard all day.
>
Seconded.
> I've been playing with Ruby, which has a similar feature. @foo is an
> object instance variable. Inside a class definition, foo() is a
> object m
> Hyperoperators:
>
> I sort of understand it, but don't really grok it. I can sort of
> thing of ways it might eliminate the need for a few maps and
> foreaches. Damian, might I request some clarification in Exogenesis?
Well, I'll probably clarify them in Exegesis instead.
"E
I'm going to post my general feelings on Apoc 3. Rather than just
post up about things I don't like, I'll also mention what I do like
and what I just don't understand. If I don't mention a piece, it
usually means I didn't really have much feeling one way o
24 matches
Mail list logo
