Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Detracters Remain Idiots After A Decade!

2012-03-01 Thread Seymour J.
In , on 03/01/2012 at 04:52 AM, Chiron said: >Yes. That (the mathematically defined way) is a particular way, is >it not? No. There is no "the mathematically defined way". >However, I wasn't specifically referring to infix/postfix/prefix or >anything of that nature. I wasn't limiting my c

Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Detracters Remain Idiots After A Decade!

2012-02-29 Thread Chiron
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:06:42 -0500, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote: > In , on 02/29/2012 >at 11:43 AM, Chiron said: > >>Sure, mathematically it *should* go a particular way, > > No. Mathematically it should go the way that it is defined to go. There > is nothing in Mathematics that either r

Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Detracters Remain Idiots After A Decade!

2012-02-29 Thread Seymour J.
In , on 02/29/2012 at 11:43 AM, Chiron said: >Sure, mathematically it *should* go a particular way, No. Mathematically it should go the way that it is defined to go. There is nothing in Mathematics that either requires or prohibits infix notation in programming languages, or even in Mathemati