[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yup. My mathematic intuition cannot suffer that:
4 X 2
to be true in any circumstances -- as it violates associativity.
If one wants to violate associativity, one should presumably *not*
use the chained comparison notation!
So Pugs will evaluate that to (#f|#f), by
Miroslav Silovic writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So Pugs will evaluate that to (#f|#f), by lifting all junctions
out of a multiway comparison, and treat the comparison itself as
a single variadic operator that is evaluated as a chain individually.
I think this is correct, however... this is
Luke Palmer writes:
Miroslav Silovic writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So Pugs will evaluate that to (#f|#f), by lifting all junctions
out of a multiway comparison, and treat the comparison itself as
a single variadic operator that is evaluated as a chain individually.
I think this is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, we see the same kind of thing with standard interval arithmetic:
(-1, 1) * (-1, 1) = (-1, 1)
(-1, 1) ** 2 = [0, 1)
The reason that junctions behave this way is because they don't
collapse. You'll note the same semantics don't arise in
Quantum::Entanglement
All~
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:51:24 +0100, Miroslav Silovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, we see the same kind of thing with standard interval arithmetic:
(-1, 1) * (-1, 1) = (-1, 1)
(-1, 1) ** 2 = [0, 1)
The reason that junctions behave this way is
On 2005.02.05.20.33, Autrijus Tang wrote:
| (I've just finished the pretty printing part in Pugs, so I'll use actual
| command line transcripts below. The leading ? does not denote boolean
| context -- it's just telling pugs to do a big-step evaluation. Also,
| boolean literals are written in
Hm. I take that back... it was a silly comment to make and not very
mathematically sound. Sorry.
--Brock
- Forwarded message from Brock [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:06:58 -0700
From: Brock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Autrijus Tang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: perl6-language@perl.org
Brock~
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:08:45 -0700, Brock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hm. I take that back... it was a silly comment to make and not very
mathematically sound. Sorry.
--Brock
- Forwarded message from Brock [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
(a b c) == (a b) and (b c)
Perl 6 Summary for 2005-01-31 through 2004-02-8
All~
Welcome to yet another summary in which I will undoubtedly confuse to
homophones. Probably more than a few this week as I am a little tired.
But perhaps the alien on my window or the vampire on my monitor will
help
Hey. In Pugs 6.0.2 (cf. http://use.perl.org/~autrijus/journal/23093 )
I'm beginning to flesh out a signature list for primitives. It's
currently, well, quite primitive but already works with the multimethod
dispatched and the context propagator, so I'd like to call for review:
10 matches
Mail list logo
