Original-Via: uk.ac.nsf; Wed, 6 Nov 91 14:43:35 GMT
Original-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1. On p. 57, middle of figure 8 it says:
x `mod` y = if signum x == -(signum y) ...
it should be:
x `mod` y = if signum r == -signum y ...
^
(as it is
Original-Via: uk.ac.ox.prg; Wed, 6 Nov 91 09:30:57 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| There were two small bugs in the solution of Mark Jones:
No, I think they were Ok (after my slight correction).
But I can see why it might look confusing at first -- we naturally tend
to think of functional
Original-Via: uk.ac.ox.prg; Wed, 6 Nov 91 11:44:16 GMT
> | Kent Karlsson asks:
> | | Which semantics did you use?
> |
> | The following seemed sensible to me (Your first choice in each case):
>
> [ ... my attempt at a semantics for c*p and p+k patterns ... ]
>
>I had hoped not, since t
Original-Via: uk.ac.st-and.cs; Wed, 6 Nov 91 14:54:59 GMT
> > | Kent Karlsson asks:
> > | | Which semantics did you use?
> > |
> > | The following seemed sensible to me (Your first choice in each case):
> >
> > [ ... my attempt at a semantics for c*p and p+k patterns ... ]
> >
> >
Original-Via: uk.ac.nsf; Wed, 6 Nov 91 20:00:39 GMT
Original-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I would be very much in favour of missing out the >= test in both n+k and
> c*n+k. As Mark says there is no need for a restriction in the latter case.
> In the former, the restriction is only there because o
