G'day all.
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 04:46:13PM +0100, Jon Fairbairn wrote:
> Someone mentioned multiplying by a scalar. I think this is a
> good application, but what we need is to agree (somehow) on
> the symbol used. I've used (*.) and (.*), with the dot being
> on the side the scalar is on (on
G'day all.
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 05:21:47PM +0200, Christian Maeder wrote:
> Why do you outrule other useful libraries (see above). In fact ($) is
> quite cryptic (for a non-Haskeller).
Actually this gives me a perfect opportunity to rant a bit. :-)
($) is a wart, even for a Haskeller. It h
What I nice application for a multi-variadic compositional operator
mcomp [1]. Only one operator does the trick, for functions of
arbitrary number of curried arguments. And I really mean the arbitrary
number of arguments, in both functions under composition. Given
> f1 x = x*x
> g2 a b = a + b
>
Wolfgang writes:
> I think, in both cases you don't define an *operator*. LaTeX probably won't
> use the correct spacing around the symbol.
>
> A related problem is that I cannot see a way to define a new "log-like
> function" (as Lamport names them), i.e., a function with a name consisting of
Tom Pledger wrote:
> K. Fritz Ruehr writes:
> :
> | But Jerzy Karczmarczuk enlightened me as to the full generality possible
> | along these lines (revealing the whole truth under the influence of at
> | least one beer, as I recall). Namely, one can define a sequence of
> | functions (let's u
Hi All (again),
Sorry for the multiple posting, but I received serveral emails about this,
so I thought I'd reply to the whole list:
(1) There was temporarily a bug on my web page with the links
which prevented you from downloading the program. This
is fixed now (sorry!).
(2) Mo
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
On Thursday, 2003-07-17, 09:08, CEST, Johannes Waldmann wrote:
A similar discussion sometimes surfaces in mathematics - where they have
"user-defined" operators all over the place, and especially so since LaTeX.
Well, for the most part, LaTeX only provides common operator
> Well, for the most part, LaTeX only provides common operators. One problem, I
> came across some weeks ago, is that it is *not* possible to define his/her own
> operators (or, at least, that Lamport's "LaTeX - A Document Preparation
> System" doesn't tell you how you can define them).
It's a
Please apologize if you receive multiple copies of this message.
COORDINATION 2004
Preliminary Call for Papers
Sixth International Conference on
Coordination Models and Languages
24-27 February 2004
On 2003-07-17 at 09:08+0200 Johannes Waldmann wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, K. Fritz Ruehr wrote:
>
> > I think the cutest way to get what you want here is to define a new
> ^^
> > operator as follows:
> >
> > (.<) = (.) . (.)
>
> Indeed this is cute - but let me add a gene
How about...
h a = f . g a
or...
f $ g 1 2
f :: Int -> Int
f x = x*x
g :: Int -> Int -> Int
g a b = a + b
...
But what I really want is a function with signature Int -> Int -> Int.
--
Brett Letner
Galois Connections, Inc.
http://www.galois.com
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
phone:(503)626-6616
Johannes Waldmann wrote:
I do think that self-defined operators make a programm less readable.
I quite like most combinators from the pretty-printer or parsing libraries!
And what's absolutely horrible (IMHO) is to allow the user
to declare arbitrary precedence and associativity for his creations
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
> A related problem is that I cannot see a way to define a new "log-like
> function" (as Lamport names them), i.e., a function with a name consisting of
> several letters which have to be set in upright font with no spaces between
> them. Examples are log, min, max, sin, cos
On Thursday, 2003-07-17, 16:07, CEST, Robert Ennals wrote:
> > Well, for the most part, LaTeX only provides common operators. One
> > problem, I came across some weeks ago, is that it is *not* possible to
> > define his/her own operators (or, at least, that Lamport's "LaTeX - A
> > Document Prepara
On Thursday, 2003-07-17, 09:08, CEST, Johannes Waldmann wrote:
> [...]
> in my code, I don't define any operators at all (only functions). I do think
> that self-defined operators make a programm less readable. All you get is a
> A short cryptic sequence of non-alphanumeric characters.
I think, t
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, K. Fritz Ruehr wrote:
> I think the cutest way to get what you want here is to define a new
^^
> operator as follows:
>
> (.<) = (.) . (.)
Indeed this is cute - but let me add a general comment here:
in my code, I don't define any operators at all (only
K. Fritz Ruehr writes:
:
| But Jerzy Karczmarczuk enlightened me as to the full generality possible
| along these lines (revealing the whole truth under the influence of at
| least one beer, as I recall). Namely, one can define a sequence of
| functions (let's use a better notation now, with "
17 matches
Mail list logo
