On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 07:35:39AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
: However I do think that, now we have C to carry the load of "exists
: uniquely", Larry will probably decide that C is strictly binary, and
: hence generalizes to the "parity" form in the n-ary case.
Hmm, I probably will. :-)
But
John Macdonald wrote:
if ($a xor $b xor $c) {...}
should succeed only when exactly one of ($a, $b, $c) is true.
That's not the definition of xor that I learned in school.
It's taking a simplified form of the definition that works
for two arguments and then expanding it to multiple
arguments -
Austin Hastings said:
> Let's look at boolean xor:
>
> if ($a xor $b xor $c) {...}
>
> should succeed only when exactly one of ($a, $b, $c) is true.
I think it is generally accepted that xor is true iff an odd nnumber of
its argumnets are true.
--
Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 03:09:15PM -0500, Austin Hastings wrote:
> Let's look at boolean xor:
>
> if ($a xor $b xor $c) {...}
>
> should succeed only when exactly one of ($a, $b, $c) is true. This corresponds
> roughly to constructing and then collapsing a one() junction:
That's not the defin
Well, maybe we should use yen (¥) instead. It even looks like a zipper.
(Of course, we'll leave out the little problem that half the people
in Japan would read it as a backslash wannabe...that's not really
a problem since a zipper would only be used where an operator is
expected, and backslash is
At 9:19 PM + 3/20/04, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
> I'm not sure that having quaternary logic in Perl 6 is necessarily a good
> idea. Why stop only at four states?
Total about twelve possible "states" plus junctions, of which eight or nine
would be 'usefu
Dear All,
I think that the broken bar is dangerous. Why:
It can be mixed up with the normal bar |. In some fonts it looks the same.
And to many people it is not 100% clear, which of the two bars is the broken
one and which not.
Off course it is possible to avoid this, but that is not solving the
Austin Hastings wrote:
Oh, and it's "petaQ" not "pitaph".
Umm, no. It's "pitaph", vice "japh". (Better than "gdtsfhogwaph", certainly.)
Oh, then in that case:
You called me a "pain in the ass"?
I should kill you were you stand!!
;-)
BTW, how did you generate that Â, or did y
> -Original Message-
> From: Damian Conway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> > Granted. But some pitaph is going to come along and find a
> > novel new use for zip outside of loops. And then it's going
> > to be in an expression of some kind, where the parser wo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
> > I'm not sure that having quaternary logic in Perl 6 is necessarily a good
> > idea. Why stop only at four states?
>
> Total about twelve possible "states" plus junctions, of which eight or nine
> would be 'useful', and only three would be knowingly u
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Simon Cozens
>
> I'm not sure that having quaternary logic in Perl 6 is necessarily a good
> idea. Why stop only at four states?
Indeed:
undef, unset (disagreeable undef, a la NaN), nocare (always match
Austin Hastings wrote:
Granted. But some pitaph is going to come along and find a novel new use for
> zip outside of loops. And then it's going to be in an expression of some kind,
where the parser won't know what to do...
%hash = @keys  @values;
Oh, and it's "petaQ" not "pitaph".
Hey...wait
I'm not sure that having quaternary logic in Perl 6 is necessarily a good
idea. Why stop only at four states?
--
... though the Japanese must be the most stupid people... I'm sure I
read somewhere that Tokyo has the densest population in the world...
- Gid Holyoake, sdm.
> -Original Message-
> From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Austin Hastings writes:
> > > From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Joe Gottman writes:
> > > > 2) Do all of the xor variants have the property that
> > > > chained calls return true if exactly one input
> >
Austin Hastings writes:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, 19 March, 2004 10:06 PM
> > To: Joe Gottman
> > Cc: Perl6
> > Subject: Re: Some questions about operators.
> >
> >
> > J
> -Original Message-
> From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, 19 March, 2004 10:06 PM
> To: Joe Gottman
> Cc: Perl6
> Subject: Re: Some questions about operators.
>
>
> Joe Gottman writes:
> > 2) Do all of the xor variants have th
Joe Gottman writes:
> 2) Do all of the xor variants have the property that chained calls
> return true if exactly one input parameter is true?
I would imagine not. C is spelled out, and by definition XOR
returns parity. On the other hand, the junctive ^ (one()) is exactly
one.
>
> 3)
17 matches
Mail list logo
