On Mon, 2007-12-31 at 12:36 +, Joost Behrends wrote:
> And concerning SQL: I like the parts of the language - all capitalized - as
> landmarks in my code, even in modified forms like:
>
> "SELECT number, customer FROM " ++ currcols ++
>
> Here i see from afar, what the code around this
Jonathan Cast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
Right click -> Color Label -> Red.
--
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
past copyright information. All rights reserved. Unauthorised copying,
hiring, renting, public performance and/or broadcasting of this
si
On 31 Dec 2007, at 1:33 PM, Achim Schneider wrote:
Jonathan Cast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 31 Dec 2007, at 10:43 AM, Achim Schneider wrote:
Achim Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's not specified though, the runtime could choose to let +
force the two chunks the different way
Jonathan Cast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 31 Dec 2007, at 10:43 AM, Achim Schneider wrote:
>
> > Achim Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> That's not specified though, the runtime could choose to let +
> >> force the two chunks the different way round.
> >>
> > And that is probab
On 31 Dec 2007, at 10:43 AM, Achim Schneider wrote:
Achim Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's not specified though, the runtime could choose to let + force
the two chunks the different way round.
And that is probably also the reason why [1..] == [1..] is _|_.
Is "Something that can
Am Montag, 31. Dezember 2007 17:43 schrieb Achim Schneider:
> Achim Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's not specified though, the runtime could choose to let + force
> > the two chunks the different way round.
>
> And that is probably also the reason why [1..] == [1..] is _|_.
>
> Is "S
Achim Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's not specified though, the runtime could choose to let + force
> the two chunks the different way round.
>
And that is probably also the reason why [1..] == [1..] is _|_.
Is "Something that can be, in any evaluation strategy, be bottom, is
botto
On Dec 31, 2007, at 6:50 AM, Cristian Baboi wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:36:02 +0200, Joost Behrends <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
I forgot 2 things:
The distinction between '=' and '==' is much like in C, although
mixing
them up is not so dangerous like in C. ':=' and '=' like in Wirth
l
"Cristian Baboi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is more strange is that a = a + 1 and a = 1 + a are somehow
> distinct. The second give a stack overflow almost instanly, but the
> first don't.
>
That's because what the runtime does looks in the second case like
a = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + ... + a
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:36:02 +0200, Joost Behrends <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I forgot 2 things:
The distinction between '=' and '==' is much like in C, although mixing
them up is not so dangerous like in C. ':=' and '=' like in Wirth
languages would be nicer.
Strangely nobody reacted on
I forgot 2 things:
>
> The distinction between '=' and '==' is much like in C, although mixing
> them up is not so dangerous like in C. ':=' and '=' like in Wirth
> languages would be nicer.
>
Strangely nobody reacted on this. That a=a+1 is an infinite recursion here
(but _|_ obviously not compl
11 matches
Mail list logo
