Alex Martelli wrote:
> Worst case, you name all your functions Beverly so you don't have to
> think about the naming
I didn't think about this, probably because I am accustomed to Haskell,
where you rather give functions different names (at the module top-level
you have no other choice). I just ch
I V wrote:
> Monads are one of those parts of functional programming I've never really
> got my head around, but as I understand them, they're a way of
> transforming what looks like a sequence of imperative programming
> statements that operate on a global state into a sequence of function
> calls
Alex Martelli wrote:
> Tomasz Zielonka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Alex Martelli wrote:
>> > Having to give functions a name places no "ceiling on expressiveness",
>> > any more than, say, having to give _macros_ a name.
>>
>> And wha
Alex Martelli wrote:
> Having to give functions a name places no "ceiling on expressiveness",
> any more than, say, having to give _macros_ a name.
And what about having to give numbers a name?
> Yes, we are, because the debate about why it's better for Python (as a
> language used in real-world
Alex Martelli wrote:
> ``An unneeded feature "cannot" be added (elegantly) in future releases
> of the language'' is just as trivial and acceptable for the unneded
> feature ``allow ( as an ordinary single-character identifier'' as for
> the unneded feature ``allow unnamed functions with all the fl
Bill Atkins wrote:
> OK, my real question is: what features of Python make it "scalable"?
Let me guess: Python makes it easier to scale the application on
the "features" axis, and the approach to large-scale computation
taken by google makes Python's poor raw performance not so big
an issue, so it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> -- The states are lists of regular expressions
> -- where [a,b,..] means match a or b or...
>
> I haven't run or studied your program yet myself but what I had in mind
> was that the list of wc's are *all* to be excluded, so the list
> [wc1..wcn] is to correspond generati
Dan Piponi wrote:
> Is this Haskell implementation what you want? It does the wildcard
> matching through a state machine and it essentially threads the
> state machine through the cartesian product, switching to the
> ordinary cartesian product when possible as an optimisation.
> The execution of
Major correction (missing case):
Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
> generateMatching :: (Ord a) => Int -> Set a -> [Pat a] -> [[a]]
> generateMatching 0 _[]= [[]]
generateMatching 0 alphabet (All:ps) = generateMatching 0 alphabet ps
> generateMatching 0 _(_:
Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
> putStrLn (concat (intersperse " " ["generateMatching", show a, show
> b, show c]))
Minor correction: it should be "generateNotMatching".
Best regards
Tomasz
--
I am searching for programmers who are good at least in
(Haskell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The python code below generates a cartesian product subject to any
> logical combination of wildcard exclusions. For example, suppose I want
> to generate a cartesian product S^n, n>=3, of [a,b,c,d] that excludes
> '*a*b*' and '*c*d*a*'. See below for details.
>
> CHALLEN
11 matches
Mail list logo
