--
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 07:13:40
Damian Conway wrote:
>Yes. That superpositions are going to be so widely used once people
>catch on, that users going to curse us every time they have to
>write C at the start of every scope.
So, I open my inbox and see that it has been stuffed with Perl 6
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
: On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 06:45:52PM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
:
: > You are making the fundamental mistake of thinking superpositions as
: > superpositions. When thinking them as another-kind-of or/and, their
: > usefulness comes a lot clearer.
:
: >
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 06:45:52PM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
> You are making the fundamental mistake of thinking superpositions as
> superpositions. When thinking them as another-kind-of or/and, their
> usefulness comes a lot clearer.
> perl5: if $x > 0 && $x < 20 && $y > 0 && $y < 20 && $z >
On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 07:18 AM, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
The only thing this inspires in my brain is Schoolhouse Rock
flashbacks.
o/~ Conjuction Junction, what's your function? o/~
Heh. That's what I heard, too.
David
--
David Wheeler AIM:
On 29 Oct 2002 at 11:22, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
> > Also the idea of allways using 'function' style for something so
> > basic like superpositions doesn't appeal to me.
>
> Superpositions are "basic" in a fabric-of-the-universe
Suggesting that a "logically entangled list of nouns" should be called
a "train". But that's just nasty.
=Austin
We've got "when," we're just missing "where". Maybe Dave Frishberg
should be on this list?
Lyrics & Music: Dave Frishberg
Performed by: Jack Sheldon
"Conjunction junction, what's
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 01:17:24AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wheeler) writes:
> > Well, I like "set operators," too, but what's the grammatical term for
> > the above "logically entangled list of nouns"?
>
> Conjunctions and disjunctions.
The only thing this inspires i
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley wrote:
>
>> Whilst I don't wish to get Medieval on your collective donkey I must
>> say that I'm really not sure of the utility of the proposed infix
>> superposition ops. I'm a big fan of any/all/one/none, I just think
>> that
>> one(an
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Larry wrote:
>
>> All other things being equal, I think people will find modal operators
>> more confusing than if we just make separate operators.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>> That being said, I'm still wondering whether we can finesse it.
>
> We can get close. B
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 1:34 PM -0800 10/29/02, Brian Ingerson wrote:
> >Every eigenbunny needs a supercozy!
>
> Absolutely. Eigenbunnies in supercozens. Sounds like we've found the
> mascot for Perl 6!
I really want to work a "pear pimples for hairy fishnuts" reference i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wheeler) writes:
> Well, I like "set operators," too, but what's the grammatical term for
> the above "logically entangled list of nouns"?
Conjunctions and disjunctions.
--
Wouldn't you love to fill out that report? "Company asset #423423
was lost while fighting the fo
At 1:34 PM -0800 10/29/02, Brian Ingerson wrote:
On 29/10/02 14:47 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:22 AM -0800 10/29/02, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>This is why I am nervous about introducing terms like eigenbunny, etc.
Oh, I dunno, I kind of like it. Of course, now my kids want
eigenbunny slip
Brian Ingerson wrote:
Oh! I just remembered the ultimate word for a container. It's "cozy", of
course!
Every eigenbunny needs a supercozy!
The plural of which is, presumable, "supercozens".
Now *I'm* really scared!
;-)
Damian
On 29/10/02 14:47 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 10:22 AM -0800 10/29/02, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> >This is why I am nervous about introducing terms like eigenbunny, etc.
>
> Oh, I dunno, I kind of like it. Of course, now my kids want
> eigenbunny slippers... (Though the trouble with those is th
Austin Hastings wrote:
I confess, I don't get it.
Yes, you did. :-)
To me, it appears to iterate over the input,
printing unique values except that two values ($start, $finish) are
considered to have already been encountered.
If that's all, then okay.
Okay then. That's all.
But does it
Larry wrote:
All other things being equal, I think people will find modal operators
more confusing than if we just make separate operators.
Agreed.
That being said, I'm still wondering whether we can finesse it.
We can get close. But that might actually be counterproductive.
> Damian's d
I confess, I don't get it. To me, it appears to iterate over the input,
printing unique values except that two values ($start, $finish) are
considered to have already been encountered.
If that's all, then okay. But does it somehow skip all entries
before/after the delimiter?
Also, in a related ve
Jonathan Scott Duff writes:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:12:28AM -0800, Brian Ingerson wrote:
> > On 29/10/02 09:58 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> > > On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> > > : On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
> > >
> > > So I would look
On 10/29/02 3:13 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
> I suspect it will be quite unusual to see nested superpositions
> in code. Most folks are going to be using them for simple but
> very common checks like:
>
> [...]
>
> my $seen = $start | $finish;
> for <> -> $next {
> print $next unless $next == $seen;
David Wheeler wrote:
Well, I like "set operators," too, but what's the grammatical term for
the above "logically entangled list of nouns"?
"Superposition".
Damian
Brian Ingerson writes:
> On 29/10/02 09:58 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> > : On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
> >
> > So I would look favorably on finding a replacement for "superposition".
>
> How about "christm
>>If someone (named Damian :-)
wrote a superposition synopsis that showed the many and varied uses of
superpositions in contexts that ordinary programmers can relate to, it
would bother me less when people make claims about the usefulness of
superpositions.
I'll take one of those for perl.com!
Piers Cawley wrote:
Whilst I don't wish to get Medieval on your collective donkey I must
say that I'm really not sure of the utility of the proposed infix
superposition ops. I'm a big fan of any/all/one/none, I just think
that
one(any($a, $b, $c), all($d, $e, $f))
Is a good deal more intent
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:26:56AM -0800, David Wheeler wrote:
> Well, I like "set operators," too, but what's the grammatical term for
> the above "logically entangled list of nouns"?
I'd call them "ents" if not for Austin Hastings' more sensible
"flexops" (unless someone wants to take a stab a
Simon Cozens wrote:
In this case I find the latter to be easier to decode and more
appealing. There are less chars and paretheses are seen much more
easily.
Ack, I guess that means we need a one character DWIM operator.
Although "..." comes pretty close, I suppose.
Great minds think alike.
At 10:22 AM -0800 10/29/02, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> This is why I am nervous about introducing terms like eigenbunny, etc.
Beats the heck out of "thingy". I had to read that chapter three times
before I realized that Randal hadn't just forgotten the real word.
I still feel uncomfortable saying
At 10:22 AM -0800 10/29/02, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
This is why I am nervous about introducing terms like eigenbunny, etc.
Oh, I dunno, I kind of like it. Of course, now my kids want
eigenbunny slippers... (Though the trouble with those is they may or
may not be keeping your feet warm--you can
I think this may be in response to an earlier message of yours looking
for a replacement for "superposition." But I recall getting a Dilbert
calendar for Xmas some years back with a cover featuring the PHB saying
"I'm not indecisive - I'm flexible!"
Thus, flexops. And flexpressions (flexprs, for
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 09:58 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
What kindergartener can't understand a
logically entangled list of nouns?
I want a tricycle or a video game or a teddy bear for Christmas.
I want a tricycle and a video game and a teddy bear for Christmas.
That's no differe
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:12:28AM -0800, Brian Ingerson wrote:
> On 29/10/02 09:58 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> > : On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
> >
> > So I would look favorably on finding a replacement for "super
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:22:36AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> This is why I am nervous about introducing terms like eigenbunny, etc.,
> into the general vocabulary of the language. It attempts to make it
> sound harder than it is, I think -- there are plenty of uses for these
> operators o
On 29/10/02 09:58 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> : On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
>
> So I would look favorably on finding a replacement for "superposition".
How about "christmasgift" or "gift"?
You don't know what it
At 10:02 AM -0800 10/29/02, Larry Wall wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: Perhaps the best thing to do is to define a word operator for
: superpositions and, if they later become really popular, snag some
: generally-available* extended character to represent the operators.
Sorry,
From: Simon Cozens [mailto:simon@;ermine.ox.ac.uk]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
> > So I would look favorably on finding a replacement for
> > "superposition".
>
> Predicate calculus? :) Seriously, I see no problem with
> calling them "set operators".
Great minds think alike. Or in t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
> So I would look favorably on finding a replacement for "superposition".
Predicate calculus? :) Seriously, I see no problem with calling them
"set operators".
--
For true believers, LORD would be K\textsc{nuth} in TeX, and
L\textsc{amport} in LaTeX. Athei
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 09:08 AM, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Statements like this bother me. Not because I don't think it might be
true, but because it's in future tense. If someone (named Damian :-)
wrote a superposition synopsis that showed the many and varied uses of
superpositions
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
: > Also the idea of allways using 'function' style for something so
: > basic like superpositions doesn't appeal to me.
:
: Superpositions are "basic" in a fabric-of-the-universe kind
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: Perhaps the best thing to do is to define a word operator for
: superpositions and, if they later become really popular, snag some
: generally-available* extended character to represent the operators.
Sorry, I believe in the transactional model of QM, a
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Austin Hastings wrote:
: --- Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > >>
: > >> one(any($a, $b, $c), all($d, $e, $f))
: > >>
: > >> Is a good deal more intention revealing than the superficially
: > >> appealing than
: > >>
: > >> ($a & $b & $c) ^ ( $d | $e | $f )
At 11:22 AM -0600 10/29/02, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
Also the idea of allways using 'function' style for something so
basic like superpositions doesn't appeal to me.
Superpositions are "basic" in a fabric-of-the-universe kind of
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Scott Duff) writes:
>> Statements like this bother me. Not because I don't think it might be
>> true, but because it's in future tense. If someone (named Damian :-)
>> wrote a superposition synopsis that showed the many and va
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
> Also the idea of allways using 'function' style for something so
> basic like superpositions doesn't appeal to me.
Superpositions are "basic" in a fabric-of-the-universe kind of way, but
they are hardly basic in the everyone-learns-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Scott Duff) writes:
> Statements like this bother me. Not because I don't think it might be
> true, but because it's in future tense. If someone (named Damian :-)
> wrote a superposition synopsis that showed the many and varied uses of
> superpositions in contexts that
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 03:06:51AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Superpositions will turn out to be unimaginably handy, possibly used
> in 10% or 15% of the code, so they get shorter names.
Statements like this bother me. Not because I don't think it might be
true, but because it's in future tense.
--- Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> one(any($a, $b, $c), all($d, $e, $f))
> >>
> >> Is a good deal more intention revealing than the superficially
> >> appealing than
> >>
> >> ($a & $b & $c) ^ ( $d | $e | $f )
Would it be practical/meaningful to say
$result = bitwis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Markus Laire) writes:
> In this case I find the latter to be easier to decode and more
> appealing. There are less chars and paretheses are seen much more
> easily.
Ack, I guess that means we need a one character DWIM operator.
Although "..." comes pretty close, I suppose.
>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 09:36:12 +
>
> Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
> >> From: Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 05:45:01 +
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
>> From: Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 05:45:01 +
>> X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
>>
>> Whilst I don't wish to get Medieval on your colle
> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
> From: Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 05:45:01 +
> X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
>
> Whilst I don't wish to get Medieval on your collective donkey I must
> say that I'm really not s
"Markus Laire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 29 Oct 2002 at 5:45, Piers Cawley wrote:
>
>> Whilst I don't wish to get Medieval on your collective donkey I must
>> say that I'm really not sure of the utility of the proposed infix
>> superposition ops. I'm a big fan of any/all/one/none, I just thi
On 29 Oct 2002 at 5:45, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Whilst I don't wish to get Medieval on your collective donkey I must
> say that I'm really not sure of the utility of the proposed infix
> superposition ops. I'm a big fan of any/all/one/none, I just think
> that
>
> one(any($a, $b, $c), all($d, $
51 matches
Mail list logo
