Mark Wooding wrote:
Would the world be a better place if we had a name for 2 pi rather than
pi itself?
I don't think so. The women working in the factory in India
that makes most of the worlds 2s would be out of a job.
--
Greg
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> Well, what is the definition of pi? Is it:
>
> the ratio of the circumference of a circle to twice its radius;
> the ratio of the area of a circle to the square of its radius;
> 4*arctan(1);
> the complex logarithm of -1 divided by the negative of the complex square
> r
On 10 Oct, 10:44, Lie Ryan wrote:
> On 10/02/10 20:04, NickKeighleywrote:
> >>> > > In a statically typed language, the of-the-wrong-type is something
> >>> > > which
> >>> > > can, by definition, be caught at compile time.
>
> >> > Any time something is true "by definition" that is an indicati
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:52:54 +0100, Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
>>
>> Given two circles with radii r1 and r2, circumferences C1 and C2, one is
>> obviously the scaled-up version of the other, therefore the ratio of
>> their circumferences is equal to the ratio of their radi
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
under Euclidean
geometry, there was a time when people didn't know whether or not the
ratio of circumference to radius was or wasn't a constant, and proving
that it is a constant is non-trivial.
I'm not sure that the construction you mentioned proves that
either, becaus
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 07:31:59PM +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:17:19 +0200, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 01:20:30PM +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:26 -0700, RG wrote:
> >>
> >> >> The formula: circumference = 2 x pi x
Steve Howell writes:
> And yet nobody can recite this equally interesting ratio to thousands
> of digits:
>
> 0.2141693770623265...
That is 1/F1 where F1 is the first Feigenbaum constant a/k/a delta.
The mathworld article is pretty good:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FeigenbaumConstant.html
I
On Oct 13, 12:31 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
0.2141693770623265
>
> Perhaps this will help illustrate what I'm talking about... the
> mathematician Mitchell Feigenbaum discovered in 1975 that, for a large
> class of chaotic systems, the ratio of each bifurcation interval to the
> next approached a
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:52:54 +0100, Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano writes:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:17:19 +0200, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 01:20:30PM +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:26 -0700, RG wrote:
>> The formula
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:28:42 +0200, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
>
But what exactly *is* this number? Is it 0.25, 1.57 or 90?
>>>
>>> That's the wrong question. It's like asking, what exactly "is" the
>>> number twenty-one -- is it "one and twenty", or 21, or 0x15,
RG wrote:
I just couldn't wrap my brain around
what it meant to square a second.
That's nothing. Magnetic permeability is measured in
newtons per square amp...
--
Greg
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:17:19 +0200, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 01:20:30PM +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:26 -0700, RG wrote:
>>>
>>> >> The formula: circumference = 2 x pi x radius is taught in primary
>>> >> schools,
"BartC" writes:
> "Thomas A. Russ" wrote in message
> news:ymi1v7vgyp8@blackcat.isi.edu...
>> torb...@diku.dk (Torben ZÆgidius Mogensen) writes:
>>
>>> Trigonometric functions do take arguments of particular units: radians
>>> or (less often) degrees, with conversion needed if you use the "w
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:28:42 +0200, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
>>> But what exactly *is* this number? Is it 0.25, 1.57 or 90?
>>
>> That's the wrong question. It's like asking, what exactly "is" the
>> number twenty-one -- is it "one and twenty", or 21, or 0x15, or 0o25,
>> or 21.0, or 20.999...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:17:19 +0200, Antoon Pardon wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 01:20:30PM +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:26 -0700, RG wrote:
>>
>> >> The formula: circumference = 2 x pi x radius is taught in primary
>> >> schools, yet it's actually a very difficult
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:07:07 +0100, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> On 2010-10-13 14:20:30 +0100, Steven D'Aprano said:
>
>> ncorrect -- it's not necessarily so that the ratio of the circumference
>> to the radius of a circle is always the same number. It could have
>> turned out that different circles had
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> Hmmm, my ISP's news software really doesn't like it when I cross-post to
> more than three newsgroups. So, trying again without comp.lang.c.
>
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 02:00:46 +0100, BartC wrote:
>
>> "RG" wrote in message
>> news:rnospamon-20651e.17410012102...@news.alba
RG writes:
> In article <8hl2ucfdv...@mid.individual.net>,
> Gregory Ewing wrote:
>> Tim Bradshaw wrote:
>> > In general any function
>> > which raises its argument to more than one power ... doesn't make
>> > much sense if its argument has units.
>>
>> That's not true. Consider the distance
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 06:05:27 -0500, r...@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
>Why should it?!? If you look way under the covers, I suspect that even
>the "c^2" in "E = mc^2" is a "collected" term in the above sense [that is,
>if I recall my classes in introductory special relativity correctly].
In spec
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 01:20:30PM +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:26 -0700, RG wrote:
>
> >> The formula: circumference = 2 x pi x radius is taught in primary
> >> schools, yet it's actually a very difficult formula to prove!
> >
> > What's to prove? That's the definit
On 2010-10-13 14:20:30 +0100, Steven D'Aprano said:
ncorrect -- it's not necessarily so that the ratio of the circumference
to the radius of a circle is always the same number. It could have turned
out that different circles had different ratios.
But pi is much more basic than that, I think.
Tim Bradshaw writes:
> On 2010-10-13 13:21:29 +0100, BartC said:
>
>> My money would have been on 0.25, based on using 1.0 for a 360°
>> circular angle. It seems far more attractive than using the
>> arbitrary-looking 6.28...
>
> It may look arbitrary, but it isn't: it's about as non-arbitrary as
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:26 -0700, RG wrote:
>> The formula: circumference = 2 x pi x radius is taught in primary
>> schools, yet it's actually a very difficult formula to prove!
>
> What's to prove? That's the definition of pi.
Incorrect -- it's not necessarily so that the ratio of the circum
Hmmm, my ISP's news software really doesn't like it when I cross-post to
more than three newsgroups. So, trying again without comp.lang.c.
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 02:00:46 +0100, BartC wrote:
> "RG" wrote in message
> news:rnospamon-20651e.17410012102...@news.albasani.net...
>> In article , "BartC"
On 2010-10-13 13:21:29 +0100, BartC said:
My money would have been on 0.25, based on using 1.0 for a 360°
circular angle. It seems far more attractive than using the
arbitrary-looking 6.28...
It may look arbitrary, but it isn't: it's about as non-arbitrary as it
is possible to be.
--
http:
"RG" wrote in message
news:rnospamon-ee76e8.18291912102...@news.albasani.net...
In article ,
"BartC" wrote:
"RG" wrote in message
> Likewise, all of the following are the same number written in different
> notations:
>
> pi/2
> pi/2 radians
> 90 degrees
> 100 gradians
> 1/4 circle
> 0.25
RG wrote:
+---
| r...@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
| > Write it our longhand and it's easier to grok:
| > 9.8 m/s^2 ==> 9.8 m/(s*s) ==> 9.8 m/(s*s) ==>
| > (9.8 meters per second) per second.
| > \ /
| > \__ speed added __/ per second
|
| Oh, t
In article ,
r...@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
> RG wrote:
> +---
> | This reminds me of back when I was a kid and my dad was trying to teach
> | me basic physics. He kept saying that the acceleration of gravity was
> | 9.8 meters per second squared and I just couldn't wrap my b
RG wrote:
+---
| This reminds me of back when I was a kid and my dad was trying to teach
| me basic physics. He kept saying that the acceleration of gravity was
| 9.8 meters per second squared and I just couldn't wrap my brain around
| what it meant to square a second.
|
| Now th
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 12:31 AM, RG wrote:
> This reminds me of back when I was a kid and my dad was trying to teach
> me basic physics. He kept saying that the acceleration of gravity was
> 9.8 meters per second squared and I just couldn't wrap my brain around
> what it meant to square a secon
On 2010-10-13 02:00:46 +0100, BartC said:
But what exactly *is* this number? Is it 0.25, 1.57 or 90?
Its pi/2, the same way 90% is 9/10.
I can also write 12 inches, 1 foot, 1/3 yards, 1/5280 miles, 304.8 mm
and so on. They are all the same number, roughly 1/13100 of the
polar circumf
In article <8hl2ucfdv...@mid.individual.net>,
Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> > In general any function
> > which raises its argument to more than one power ... doesn't make
> > much sense if its argument has units.
>
> That's not true. Consider the distance travelled by a
> fall
In article <8hl3grfh2...@mid.individual.net>,
Gregory Ewing wrote:
> RG wrote:
> > Even an interest
> > rate of 0.1 radians makes sense if for some unfathomable reason you want
> > to visualize your interest payment as the relative length of a line
> > segment and an arc.
>
> It could even b
Dann Corbit wrote:
But in a very real sense it is a measure of rotation. We could call it
a special measure, sort of like the way that e is a special base
compared to all others.
That's not the only thing that radians are useful for, though.
Consider a weight bobbing up and down on a spring,
RG wrote:
Even an interest
rate of 0.1 radians makes sense if for some unfathomable reason you want
to visualize your interest payment as the relative length of a line
segment and an arc.
It could even be quite reasonable if you're presenting it
as a segment of a pie graph.
For what it's wor
Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
So the interesting thing is that some pseudo-units don't have
dimensions. They only have the scale.
I don't think the term "pseudo-unit" is particularly necessary.
They're just units in which the powers of all the possible
dimensions are zero. Calling them pseudo-
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
In general any function
which raises its argument to more than one power ... doesn't make
much sense if its argument has units.
That's not true. Consider the distance travelled by a
falling object: y(t) = y0 + v0*t + 0.5*a*t**2. Here t has
dimensions of time, and it's bein
In article
,
Peter Nilsson wrote:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
> > The radian is defined as a ratio of lengths. That ratio
> > is the same regardless of the size of the circle. The
> > choice of 1/(2*pi) of the circumference isn't arbitrary
> > at all; there are sound mathematical reasons for it.
In article <87mxqin49o@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com>,
p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) wrote:
> There's a notion of
> angle that is different from the notion of interest rate.
Only because of how they are conventionally used. There's no difference
between sin(0.1) and sin(10%
Keith Thompson wrote:
> The radian is defined as a ratio of lengths. That ratio
> is the same regardless of the size of the circle. The
> choice of 1/(2*pi) of the circumference isn't arbitrary
> at all; there are sound mathematical reasons for it.
Yes, but what is pi then?
> Mathematicians cou
Tim Bradshaw writes:
> On 2010-10-12 20:46:26 +0100, BartC said:
>
>> You can't do all that if angles are just numbers.
>
> I think that the discussion of percentages is relevant here: angles
> //are// just numbers, but you're choosing a particular way of
> displaying them (or reading them). 100%
In article , b...@freeuk.com
says...
>
> "RG" wrote in message
> news:rnospamon-20651e.17410012102...@news.albasani.net...
> > In article ,
> > "BartC" wrote:
> >
> >> "Thomas A. Russ" wrote in message
>
> >> > But radians are dimensionless.
> >>
> >> But they are still units
> >
> > No, the
On 13/10/2010 02:36, Keith Thompson wrote:
"BartC" writes:
"RG" wrote in message
news:rnospamon-20651e.17410012102...@news.albasani.net...
[...]
Likewise, all of the following are the same number written in different
notations:
pi/2
pi/2 radians
90 degrees
100 gradians
1/4 circle
0.25 circl
In article ,
Keith Thompson wrote:
> "BartC" writes:
> > "RG" wrote in message
> > news:rnospamon-20651e.17410012102...@news.albasani.net...
> [...]
> >> Likewise, all of the following are the same number written in different
> >> notations:
> >>
> >> pi/2
> >> pi/2 radians
> >> 90 degrees
>
"BartC" writes:
> "RG" wrote in message
> news:rnospamon-20651e.17410012102...@news.albasani.net...
[...]
>> Likewise, all of the following are the same number written in different
>> notations:
>>
>> pi/2
>> pi/2 radians
>> 90 degrees
>> 100 gradians
>> 1/4 circle
>> 0.25 circle
>> 25% of a cir
In article ,
"BartC" wrote:
> "RG" wrote in message
> news:rnospamon-20651e.17410012102...@news.albasani.net...
> > In article ,
> > "BartC" wrote:
> >
> >> "Thomas A. Russ" wrote in message
>
> >> > But radians are dimensionless.
> >>
> >> But they are still units
> >
> > No, they aren't.
"RG" wrote in message
news:rnospamon-20651e.17410012102...@news.albasani.net...
In article ,
"BartC" wrote:
"Thomas A. Russ" wrote in message
> But radians are dimensionless.
But they are still units
No, they aren't.
so that you can choose to use radians, degrees or gradians
Those
In article ,
"BartC" wrote:
> "Thomas A. Russ" wrote in message
> news:ymi1v7vgyp8@blackcat.isi.edu...
> > torb...@diku.dk (Torben ZÆgidius Mogensen) writes:
> >
> >> Trigonometric functions do take arguments of particular units: radians
> >> or (less often) degrees, with conversion needed
Thomas A. Russ wrote:
"BartC" writes:
"Thomas A. Russ" wrote in message
news:ymi1v7vgyp8@blackcat.isi.edu...
torb...@diku.dk (Torben Z??gidius Mogensen) writes:
Trigonometric functions do take arguments of particular units: radians
or (less often) degrees, with conversion needed if you
"BartC" writes:
> "Thomas A. Russ" wrote in message
> news:ymi1v7vgyp8@blackcat.isi.edu...
> > torb...@diku.dk (Torben ZÆgidius Mogensen) writes:
> >
> >> Trigonometric functions do take arguments of particular units: radians
> >> or (less often) degrees, with conversion needed if you use t
On 2010-10-12 20:46:26 +0100, BartC said:
You can't do all that if angles are just numbers.
I think that the discussion of percentages is relevant here: angles
//are// just numbers, but you're choosing a particular way of
displaying them (or reading them). 100% //is// 1, and 360° //is// 2π.
"Thomas A. Russ" wrote in message
news:ymi1v7vgyp8@blackcat.isi.edu...
torb...@diku.dk (Torben ZÆgidius Mogensen) writes:
Trigonometric functions do take arguments of particular units: radians
or (less often) degrees, with conversion needed if you use the "wrong"
unit.
But radians are
torb...@diku.dk (Torben Ægidius Mogensen) writes:
> Trigonometric functions do take arguments of particular units: radians
> or (less often) degrees, with conversion needed if you use the "wrong"
> unit.
But radians are dimensionless.
The definition of a radian is length/length (or m/m) which s
On 2010-10-12 11:16:09 +0100, Ben said:
Angles aren't "true" units, as they are ratios of two lengths. They
are more of a "pseudo" unit.
That's right, in fact angles are pure numbers. In general any function
which raises its argument to more than one power (for instance anything
with a non-
On Oct 12, 8:45 am, torb...@diku.dk (Torben Ægidius Mogensen) wrote:
> Vic Kelson writes:
> > That said, I'm having a hard time thinking of a transcendental
> > function that doesn't take a dimensionless argument, e.g. what on
> > earth would be the units of ln(4.0 ft)?
>
> Trigonometric functions
On Sep 28, 10:55 am, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> There's a large existing body of knowledge on dimensional analysis
> (it's a very important tool for physics, for instance), and obviously
> the answer is to do whatever it does. Raising to any power is fine, I
> think (but transcendental functions, for
Martin Gregorie wrote:
+---
| Lie Ryan wrote:
| > Virtual Machine in Hardware... isn't that a contradiction?
|
| Nope. Several mainframes did that.
|
| Two that I knew well were both British - the ICL 1900 and 2900.
| The Burroughs x700 series also used hardware virtualisation.
+---
On 2:59 PM, Lie Ryan wrote:
On 10/01/10 23:56, BartC wrote:
"Pascal J. Bourguignon" wrote in message
news:87zkuyjawh@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com...
"BartC" writes:
"Pascal J. Bourguignon" wrote in message
When Intel will realize that 99% of its users are running VM
Which one?
Any
On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 21:38:11 +1100, Lie Ryan wrote:
>
> Virtual Machine in Hardware... isn't that a contradiction?
>
Nope. Several mainframes did that.
Two that I knew well were both British - the ICL 1900 and 2900. The
Burroughs x700 series also used hardware virtualisation. Both Burroughs
a
On 10/01/10 23:56, BartC wrote:
>
> "Pascal J. Bourguignon" wrote in message
> news:87zkuyjawh@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com...
>> "BartC" writes:
>>
>>> "Pascal J. Bourguignon" wrote in message
>
When Intel will realize that 99% of its users are running VM
>>>
>>> Which one?
>>
>> Any
On 10/05/10 14:36, salil wrote:
> So, the programmer who
> specifically mentions "Int" in the signature of the function, is
> basically overriding this default behavior for specific reasons
> relevant to the application, for example, for performance. I think
> Haskell's way is the right.
I agree
On 10/02/10 20:04, Nick Keighley wrote:
>>> > > In a statically typed language, the of-the-wrong-type is something which
>>> > > can, by definition, be caught at compile time.
>> >
>> > Any time something is true "by definition" that is an indication that
>> > it's not a particularly useful fact.
>
On 10/01/10 00:24, TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
>
>>
>>> If I had to choose between "blow up" or "invalid answer" I would pick
>>> "invalid answer".
>>
>> there are some application domains where neither option would be
>> viewed as a satisfactory error handling strategy. Fly-by-wire, petro-
>> chemic
Keith H Duggar writes:
> On Sep 29, 9:01 pm, RG wrote:
>> That the problem is "elsewhere in the program" ought to be small
>> comfort. But very well, try this instead:
>>
>> [...@mighty:~]$ cat foo.c
>> #include
>>
>> int maximum(int a, int b) { return a > b ? a : b; }
>>
>> int main() {
>>
In article
<1a172248-8aab-42f0-a8a2-3f00168f9...@u13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
Keith H Duggar wrote:
> On Sep 29, 9:01 pm, RG wrote:
> > That the problem is "elsewhere in the program" ought to be small
> > comfort. But very well, try this instead:
> >
> > [...@mighty:~]$ cat foo.c
> > #inclu
On Sep 29, 9:01 pm, RG wrote:
> That the problem is "elsewhere in the program" ought to be small
> comfort. But very well, try this instead:
>
> [...@mighty:~]$ cat foo.c
> #include
>
> int maximum(int a, int b) { return a > b ? a : b; }
>
> int main() {
> long x = 8589934592;
> printf("Max
On 05/10/2010 05:36, salil wrote:
On Sep 30, 1:38 pm, Lie Ryan wrote:
The /most/ correct version of maximum() function is probably one written
in Haskell as:
maximum :: Integer -> Integer -> Integer
maximum a b = if a> b then a else b
Integer in Haskell has infinite precision (like python'
On Sep 30, 1:38 pm, Lie Ryan wrote:
> The /most/ correct version of maximum() function is probably one written
> in Haskell as:
>
> maximum :: Integer -> Integer -> Integer
> maximum a b = if a > b then a else b
>
> Integer in Haskell has infinite precision (like python's int, only
> bounded by me
RG writes:
> There are only two possibilities: either you have a finite-state
> machine, or you have a Turning machine. (Well, OK, you could have a
> pushdown automaton, but there are no programming languages that model a
> PDA. Well, OK, there's Forth, but AFAIK there are no static type
>
An interesting archive article on the topic of correctness, and the
layers thereof:
Program verification: the very idea;
Communications of the ACM
Volume 31 , Issue 9 (September 1988)
Pages: 1048 - 1063
Year of Publication: 1988
ISSN:0001-0782
"The notion of program verificatio
On 1 Oct, 19:33, RG wrote:
> In article ,
> Seebs wrote:
> > On 2010-10-01, RG wrote:
> > >> Those goal posts are sorta red shifted at this point.
[...]
> > > Red shifted?
>
> > Moving away fast enough that their color has visibly changed.
doppler shift for instance or one of them cosmologi
On 1 Oct, 11:02, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) wrote:
> Seebs writes:
> > On 2010-09-30, Ian Collins wrote:
> >> Which is why agile practices such as TDD have an edge. If it compiles
> >> *and* passes all its tests, it must be right.
>
> > So far as I know, that actually just
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 11:56:24 +0200, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
> Actually, it's hard to find a language that has no compiler generating
> faster code than C...
Perl. Python. Ruby. Applescript. Hypertalk. Tcl. RPL. Frink. Inform 7.
ActionScript. Dylan. Emerald. And hundreds more serious languag
Raffael Cavallaro
writes:
>> prints appears to be the 2000th Fibonacci number rather than the 1000th.
> I think you're mistaken. fib(0) = 0, fib(1) = 1, fib(2) = 1, fib(3) =
> 2 ... fib(11)= 89 ...
Whoops, you're right, I messed up my program while refactoring it. Sorry.
> you like we can do i
On 2010-10-01 22:44:11 -0400, Paul Rubin said:
I have no idea what that fancy algorithm is doing, but the number it
prints appears to be the 2000th Fibonacci number rather than the 1000th.
I think you're mistaken. fib(0) = 0, fib(1) = 1, fib(2) = 1, fib(3) = 2
... fib(11)= 89 ...
fib(1000) =
"BartC" writes:
> "Pascal J. Bourguignon" wrote in message
> news:877hi1iq2o@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com...
>> "BartC" writes:
>
>>> (defun fib (n)
>>> (if (< n 2)
>>> n
>>> (+ n (fib (- n 1)) (fib (- n 2)) )
>>> ))
>>>
>>> But it gave the wrong results and it took ages to fi
Raffael Cavallaro writes:
> CL-USER 119 > (defun fib (n)
>(/ (loop for k from 1 to n by 2
> sum (/ (* (expt 5 (/ (1- k) 2)) (fact n))
>(fact k) (fact (- n k
> (expt 2 (1- n
> CL-USER 122 > (time (fib
On 2010-10-01 16:47:02 -0400, BartC said:
I had a quick look at Lisp to see if your claims had any basis. I tried
this program:
(defun fib (n)
(if (< n 2)
n
(+ n (fib (- n 1)) (fib (- n 2)) )
))
But it gave the wrong results and it took ages to figure out why. Even
after dow
"Pascal J. Bourguignon" wrote in message
news:877hi1iq2o@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com...
"BartC" writes:
(defun fib (n)
(if (< n 2)
n
(+ n (fib (- n 1)) (fib (- n 2)) )
))
But it gave the wrong results and it took ages to figure out why. Even
I thought you were saying t
"BartC" writes:
> "Pascal J. Bourguignon" wrote in message
> news:87sk0qkzhz@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com...
>
>> Nothing extraordinary here. Common Lisp is more efficient than C.
>> http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier/research/verna.06.ecoop.pdf
>> http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=114416
"Pascal J. Bourguignon" wrote in message
news:87sk0qkzhz@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com...
Nothing extraordinary here. Common Lisp is more efficient than C.
http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier/research/verna.06.ecoop.pdf
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1144168
Actually, it's hard to fin
p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) writes:
> Seebs writes:
>> On 2010-10-01, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
>>> Seebs writes:
On 2010-10-01, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
> compiler passes wrong type wrong resultfails at run-time
>
RG writes:
> In article ,
> Seebs wrote:
>
>> On 2010-09-30, RG wrote:
>> > That gives (what I would consider to be) false positives, e.g.:
>>
>> > [...@mighty:~]$ cat foo.c
>>
>> > void foo(long x) {}
>>
>> > int main() { foo(1); }
>> > [...@mighty:~]$ gcc -Wconversion foo.c
>> > foo.c: In
TheFlyingDutchman writes:
> On Sep 30, 10:37 pm, RG wrote:
>> In article <87tyl63cag@mail.geddis.org>,
>> Don Geddis wrote:
>> > Keith Thompson wrote on Thu, 30 Sep 2010:
>> > > RG writes:
>> > >> You're missing a lot of context. I'm not trying to criticize C, just to
>> > >> refute a fa
Seebs writes:
> On 2010-10-01, TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
>>> > ? ? ? ? in C I can have a function maximum(int a, int b) that will always
>>> > ? ? ? ? work. Never blow up, and never give an invalid answer. If someone
>>> > ? ? ? ? tries to call it incorrectly it is a compile error.
>
>>> I would a
In article ,
Seebs wrote:
> On 2010-10-01, RG wrote:
> > Again, you can't have it both ways. Either a warning is a "compiler
> > error" according to the claim at issue (see below) or it is not. If it
> > is, then this is a false positive.
>
> No, it isn't. It's a correctly identified type
On 10/ 2/10 05:18 AM, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
Seebs writes:
On 2010-10-01, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
static dynamic
compiler detects wrong type fail at compile fails at run-time
Seebs writes:
> On 2010-10-01, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
>> Seebs writes:
>>> On 2010-10-01, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
compiler passes wrong type wrong resultfails at run-time
(the programmer (with exception
On 10/1/2010 2:28 AM, TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
in C I can have a function maximum(int a, int b) that will always
work. Never blow up, and never give an invalid answer. If someone
tries to call it incorrectly it is a compile error.
I would agree that the third senten
On 2010-10-01, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
> Seebs writes:
>> On 2010-10-01, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
>>> compiler passes wrong type wrong resultfails at run-time
>>> (the programmer (with exception
>>> spends
On 10/1/2010 7:17 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
Nothing extraordinary here. Common Lisp is more efficient than C.
http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier/research/verna.06.ecoop.pdf
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1144168
I don't know if you are intentionally trying to be
Seebs writes:
> On 2010-10-01, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
>> static dynamic
>>
>> compiler detects wrong type fail at compile fails at run-time
>> (with exception
>>
"BartC" writes:
> "Pascal J. Bourguignon" wrote in message
> news:87zkuyjawh@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com...
>> "BartC" writes:
>>
>>> "Pascal J. Bourguignon" wrote in message
>
When Intel will realize that 99% of its users are running VM
>>>
>>> Which one?
>>
>> Any implementation of
On Oct 1, 7:17 pm, Rui Maciel wrote:
> a) no language is inherently more or less efficient than any other language.
> The efficiency
> aspect is only related to how those languages are implemented (i.e., the
> investments made in
> optimizing the compilers/interpreters)
I used to believe the
On 2010-10-01, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Now can we (by which I mean *you*) stop cross-posting C talk to multiple
> newsgroups that don't have anything to do with C?
Fair enough. The original thread does seem to have been crossposted in
an innovative way.
-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs rever
On 2010-10-01, RG wrote:
> Again, you can't have it both ways. Either a warning is a "compiler
> error" according to the claim at issue (see below) or it is not. If it
> is, then this is a false positive.
No, it isn't. It's a correctly identified type mismatch.
You keep moving the goal post
On 2010-10-01, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
> static dynamic
>
> compiler detects wrong type fail at compile fails at run-time
> (with exception
>
On 2010-10-01, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
> Seebs writes:
>> The obvious simple maximum() in C will not raise an exception nor return
>> something which isn't an int in any program which is not on its face
>> invalid in the call. This is by definite contrast with several of the
>> interpreted
On 2010-10-01, TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
>> > ? ? ? ? in C I can have a function maximum(int a, int b) that will always
>> > ? ? ? ? work. Never blow up, and never give an invalid answer. If someone
>> > ? ? ? ? tries to call it incorrectly it is a compile error.
>> I would agree that the third se
Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
> Nothing extraordinary here. Common Lisp is more efficient than C.
> http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier/research/verna.06.ecoop.pdf
> http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1144168
I don't know if you are intentionally trying to be deceitful or if you honestly
didn't
1 - 100 of 243 matches
Mail list logo
