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
23 matches
Mail list logo
