"Marshall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In general, I feel that "records" are not the right conceptual
> level to think about.
Unfortunately, they are the right level. Actually,the right level
might even be lower, the fields within a record, but that's moving
even farther away from the direction
Joachim Durchholz wrote:
>
> You can have aliasing without pointers; e.g. arrays are fully sufficient.
> If i = j, then a [i] and a [j] are aliases of the same object.
"Marshall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am having a hard time with this very broad definition of aliasing.
> Would we also
"Greg Buchholz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chris F Clark wrote:
> > Thus, as we traverse a list, the first element might be an integer,
> > the second a floating point value, the third a sub-list, the fourth
> > and fifth, two more integers, and so on. I
I wrote:
> The important thing is the dynamicism of lisp allowed one to write
> polymorphic programs, before most of us knew the term.
Chris Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sure. In exchange for giving up the proofs of the type checker, you
> could write all kinds of programs. To this day,
I wrote:
> These informal systems, which may not prove what they claim to prove
> are my concept of a "type system".
Chris Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> replied:
> Okay, that works. I'm not sure where it gets us, though
Ok, we'll get there. First, we need to step back in time, to when there
was
Chris F Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (I) wrote:
> Do you reject that there could be something more general than what a
> type theorist discusses? Or do you reject calling such things a type?
Chris Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that the correspondence partly in t
Chris F Clark (I) wrote:
> I'm particularly interested if something unsound (and perhaps
> ambiguous) could be called a type system. I definitely consider such
> things type systems.
"Marshall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't understand. You ar
Chris Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unfortunately, I have to again reject this idea. There is no such
> restriction on type theory. Rather, the word type is defined by type
> theorists to mean the things that they talk about.
Do you reject that there could be something more general th
Chris Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I thought about this in the context of reading Anton's latest post to
> me, but I'm just throwing out an idea.
I wrote:
> I think there is some sense of convergence here.
Apologies for following-up to my own post, but I forgot to describe
the converg
Chris Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I thought about this in the context of reading Anton's latest post to
> me, but I'm just throwing out an idea.
I think there is some sense of convergence here. In particular, I
reason about my program using "unsound types". That is, I reason
about
Pascal Costanza wrote:
> Consider a simple expression like 'a + b': In a dynamically typed
> language, all I need to have in mind is that the program will attempt to
> add two numbers. In a statically typed language, I additionally need to
> know that there must a guarantee that a and b will always
Chris F Clark schrieb:
> In that sense, a static type system is eliminating tags, because the
> information is pre-computed and not explicitly stored as a part of the
> computation. Now, you may not view the tag as being there, but in my
> mind if there exists a way of perfoming the
Chris F Clark wrote:
> A static
> type system eliminates some set of tags on values by syntactic
> analysis of annotations (types) written with or as part of the program
> and detects some of the disallowed compuatations (staticly) at compile
> time.
Adreas relied:
> Explicit a
Chris Smith wrote:
> Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > While I am quite sympathetic to this point, I have to say that
> > this horse left the barn quite some time ago.
>
> I don't think so. Perhaps it's futile to go scouring the world for uses
> of the phrase "dynamic type" and eliminating t
Kenny replied to me saying:
> Yep. But with Cells the dependency graph is just a shifting record of
> who asked who, shifting because all of a sudden some outlier data will
> enter the system and a rule will branch to code for the first time,
> and suddenly "depend on" on some new other cell (new a
David C Ullrich asked:
> Q: How do we ensure there are no loops in the dependencies?
>
> Do we actually run the whole graph through some algorithm
> to verify there are no loops?
The question you are asking is the dependency graph a "directed
acyclic graph" (commonly called a DAG)? One algorithm
Yes, there is literature on the generating side of the regular
expression/FSM model. In fact, the matching problem and the
generating problems are exactly equivalent. A slight variation of the
definition of how a matcher works, turns it into a generator and vice
versa. To directly generate (rath
17 matches
Mail list logo
