Richard Hainsworth wrote:
Consider the position you put me, or another sponsor, in.
I want to endorse everything Richard then went on to say.
I have already contacted Uri and expressed my dismay at his entirely
inappropriate interjection of an advertisement for our Perl College event into
t
At 21:40 +0100 3/25/08, TSa wrote:
>Doug McNutt wrote:
>>Don't allow it ( = - f($x); )to become
>>
>>= f(-$x); ## wrong!
>
>Unless of course f does Linear, then you can factor out or in the
>multiplication with -1 at will. So linearity of operators and
>functions is a very interesting property f
HaloO,
Doug McNutt wrote:
Well. . . I was going to let it pass but I had trouble sleeping this
> morning because of it.
Sorry.
f($x) = constant + $x
>
would certainly be considered a linear function
No, I was talking about the other linear ;)
with constant
derivative but for that def
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:24 AM, TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree. But let me explain how I arrive at that. To me there is no
> binary minus!
I must agree with that one. In chalkboard mathematics, - is a unary
negation operator, and its use as a binary op in "x - y" is just
shorthand f
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:04:43PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:24 AM, TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > I agree. But let me explain how I arrive at that. To me there is no
: > binary minus!
:
: I must agree with that one. In chalkboard mathematics, - is a unary
: ne
I think the crucial point to pick up on is something that chromatic has
pointed out very well in any number of use.perl journal postings over the
past year. That is, Perl 6's creation is dependent on how much time people
put into it, and how many people put in time. The volunteer effort to date
h
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 01:28:06AM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
: > What does Perl 6 do in that respect? Maybe semantics could be
: > borrowed from there?
:
: In which respect?
:
: TTBOMK, both eval's role as pseud
HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
That interpretation doesn't help me solve my generic parsing problems,
which is about the relationship of op1 to op2 and op3 in
op1 a() op2 b() op3 c()
and presumably the same thing for postfixes in the other order.
My idea is to have a term re-writing stage befo
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 1:06 PM, TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1 + a(x)²!
Seems like a mathematician would be inclined to write that one as this instead:
1 + a²(x)!
But I'm not suggesting that you try to make (a**2)(x) work for
(a(x))**2 in Perl. :)
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 06:06:29PM +0100, TSa wrote:
> HaloO,
>
> Larry Wall wrote:
>> That interpretation doesn't help me solve my generic parsing problems,
>> which is about the relationship of op1 to op2 and op3 in
>>
>> op1 a() op2 b() op3 c()
>>
>> and presumably the same thing for postfix
Larry Wall wrote:
> So here's another question in the same vein. How would mathematicians
> read these (assuming Perl has a factorial postfix operator):
>
> 1 + a(x)**2!
> 1 + a(x)²!
The "1 + ..." portion is not in dispute: in both cases, everything to
the right of the addition sign get
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:00:09AM -0700, Jon Lang wrote:
: OTOH, you didn't ask how mathematicians would write this; you asked
: how they'd read it. As an amateur mathematician (my formal education
: includes linear algebra and basic differential equations), I read the
: former as "a(x) to the tw
HaloO,
Jon Lang wrote:
all unary operators, be
they prefix or postfix, should be evaluated before any binary operator
is.
Note that I see ** more as a parametric postscript then a real binary.
That is $x**$y sort of means $x(**$y). Note also that for certain
operations only integer values for
Larry Wall wrote:
> Now, I think I know how to make the parser use precedence on either
> a prefix or a postfix to get the desired effect (but perhaps not going
> both directions simulatenously). But that leads me to a slightly
> different parsing question, which comes from the asymmetry of po
HaloO,
Mark J. Reed wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 1:06 PM, TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1 + a(x)²!
Seems like a mathematician would be inclined to write that one as this instead:
1 + a²(x)!
That one is ambiguous because it could mean a(a(x)) or a(x)*a(x)
with the latter case bein
HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
That's what I thought. Now note that ! can't easily be rewritten
as a simple binary operator (unless you do something recursive, and
then it's not simple).
Would $x! == [*]1..$x constitute simple parserwise? Admittedly
it's not a single but two ops and one of them a m
Hi James,
Your comment suggest you have a particular perspective or point of view.
Without providing a some context I'm afraid I'm going to find some of your
comments confusing.
>
> * just release perl 6 now and move on
>
This is one of those confusing comments. There isn't a single p6
implem
can I add a few unsolicited ruminations from a lurker;
* just release perl 6 now and move on
* do not hire 40 year olds with responsibilities, convince the
young to spend their time for free ... isn't that what one is supposed
to do after the age of 40 ?
* use all funds to promote its u
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:00:09AM -0700, Jon Lang wrote:
: all unary operators, be they prefix or postfix, should be evaluated
: before any binary operator is.
And leaving the pool of voting mathematicians out of it for the moment,
how would you parse these:
sleep $then - $now
not $a eq
TSa wrote:
> Jon Lang wrote:
> > all unary operators, be
> > they prefix or postfix, should be evaluated before any binary operator
> > is.
>
> Note that I see ** more as a parametric postscript then a real binary.
> That is $x**$y sort of means $x(**$y).
That's where we differ, then. I'm h
HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
likewise, should these be parsed the same?
$a**2i
$a**2.i
and if so, how to we rationalize a class of postfix operators that
*look* like ordinary method calls but don't parse the same.
This is a conceptual problem that .blahh is visually nailed down on
the t
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 07:43:16PM +0100, TSa wrote:
> HaloO,
>
> Larry Wall wrote:
>> That's what I thought. Now note that ! can't easily be rewritten
>> as a simple binary operator (unless you do something recursive, and
>> then it's not simple).
>
> Would $x! == [*]1..$x constitute simple parse
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:00:09AM -0700, Jon Lang wrote:
>
> : all unary operators, be they prefix or postfix, should be evaluated
> : before any binary operator is.
>
> And leaving the pool of voting mathematicians out of
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Richard Dice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What all of myself, chromatic and Richard Hainsworth seem to appreciate is
> that a plan without resources to back it up is almost guaranteed to be
> ineffective. Even more than that, we have an appreciation that planning
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 08:26:35PM +0100, James Fuller wrote:
: oh ya and the ability to mate right we can
: leave the last one off ;)
No we can't. That is *precisely* what this whole business of derivable
grammars is about, and it came about because you couldn't mate two
source filters in P
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Jon Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Those don't strike me as being unary operators; they strike me as
> being function calls that have left out the parentheses.
At least through Perl5, 'tain't no difference between those two in Perl land.
As for binary !, you
Mark J. Reed wrote:
> Jon Lang wrote:
> > Those don't strike me as being unary operators; they strike me as
> > being function calls that have left out the parentheses.
>
> At least through Perl5, 'tain't no difference between those two in Perl land.
True enough - though the question at hand
On Wednesday 26 March 2008 11:08:15 James Fuller wrote:
> can I add a few unsolicited ruminations from a lurker;
>
>* just release perl 6 now and move on
To what extent?
Larry "just released" Perl 5 some 13 and a half years ago, and there've been a
few patches applied to it in the past 24 h
Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:56:08PM -0600, Thom Boyer wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
... In the
limit, suppose some defines a postfix "say" looser than comma:
(1,2,3)say
1,2,3say
1,2,3.say
I must be missing something. Wouldn't it be easier to write
1,2,3 say
since
Thom Boyer wrote:
> But the main point I was trying to make is just that I didn't see the
> necessity of positing
>
> 1,2,3\say
>
> when (if I understand correctly) you could write that as simply as
>
> 1,2,3 say
Nope. This is the same situation as the aforementioned '++' example,
in
On Wednesday 26 March 2008 12:26:35 James Fuller wrote:
> I do not think that its right to release
> perl6 for the language, but it might be 'right' to do for language
> adoption no doubt cathedral / bazaar forces are in effect.
I don't follow this; can you elaborate?
-- c
31 matches
Mail list logo
