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 probably also the reason
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
Peter Verswyvelen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Regarding this the universe is a turing machine: until a couple of
years ago, I also was someone that believed that (A) the universe
(and life) could be simulated by a computer,
Yesss. Nice. A bit of Escher here:
Imagine an instance of eval
Cristian Baboi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:00:05 +0200, Daniel Fischer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Sonntag, 30. Dezember 2007 18:16 schrieb Cristian Baboi:
A simple question:
Can you write the value of x to a file where x = (1:x) ?
Not in finite time and
Cristian Baboi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
module Module where
a= let x=1:x in x
main = do something to write a (a notation for a) to file
The function must work if one change a to let x=2:x in x, let
x=1:2:3:x and variations on the same theme.
import GHC?
you can even load it directly
Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Luke Palmer wrote:
OO is orthogonal to functional. Erlang is pure functional, Lisp is
a bastard child...
2. I'm curios as to how you can have a functional OO language. The
two seem fundamentally incompatible:
By writing an object that takes
Cristian Baboi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It appears as if lambda calculus is defined by lambda calculus.
Yes. id (lambda calculus) = lambda calculus. You might try to point
back to yourself when being asked who you are to see the advantage of
this technique.
--
(c) this sig last receiving
Cristian Baboi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 16:01:51 +0200, Achim Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Cristian Baboi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It appears as if lambda calculus is defined by lambda calculus.
Yes. id (lambda calculus) = lambda calculus. You might try
Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting... So you're claiming that humans have powers of
deduction beyond what computers possess? ;-)
They would be programming us if otherwise, wouldn't they?
--
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
past
Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
only because it's pleasant for people
to believe in their free will, creativeness, smartness and don't
believe in computers' ones.
Let's see...
Hey, pipeline, there's an jnz eax! we can either jump to the address or
continue, what do you think?
I
Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Achim,
Saturday, December 29, 2007, 8:40:05 PM, you wrote:
Interesting... So you're claiming that humans have powers of
deduction beyond what computers possess? ;-)
They would be programming us if otherwise, wouldn't they?
oh, well.
Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Tim,
Saturday, December 29, 2007, 9:42:48 PM, you wrote:
The only thing that computers can do that humans can't is to work
without getting bored.
ok, please compute 2^2^30 before continuing discussion. it seems that
you just use i'm too
Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Achim,
Saturday, December 29, 2007, 9:22:40 PM, you wrote:
I think we should jump, eax is zero and I don't want to get
redesigned.
It's all about natural selection, it seems. Heretics get burned in
both worlds.
for me, natural
Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Achim,
Saturday, December 29, 2007, 10:16:39 PM, you wrote:
The only thing that computers can do that humans can't is to work
without getting bored.
ok, please compute 2^2^30 before continuing discussion. it seems
that you just use
Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
computers don't make mistakes, don't sleep, don't have their own
goals that differ from goals of their society.
Of course not. It would be a different society if their goals would
differ.
--
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect
Peter Verswyvelen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only thing that computers can do that humans can't is to work
without getting bored.
It's always interesting to compare computers and humans, especially
computer scientist seem to do that :)
Hm. More importantly, only humans try to write
Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And, pray, what problem does the nature wants to solve that it
thinks in the way of all history until now?
making the Superhero who will kill'em all. and it's already very close
Damn, I do continue making the mistake assuming that you got all that
Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Achim,
Saturday, December 29, 2007, 11:47:50 PM, you wrote:
It's always interesting to compare computers and humans, especially
computer scientist seem to do that :)
Hm. More importantly, only humans try to write a general Eq and Ord
Daniel Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you please agree to disagree?
I fear Bulat decided to a long time ago. I agree to shut up.
--
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
past copyright information. All rights reserved. Unauthorised copying,
hiring,
ChrisK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
zeroNothing Nothing = Nothing
zeroNothing (Just n) =
if n == 0 then Nothing else (Just n)
versus
zeroNothing Nothing = Nothing
zeroNothing x@(Just n) =
if n == 0 then Nothing else x
versus
zeroNothing Nothing = Nothing
zeroNothing x =
let
Ben Franksen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Achim Schneider wrote:
ChrisK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
zeroNothing Nothing = Nothing
zeroNothing (Just n) =
if n == 0 then Nothing else (Just n)
versus
zeroNothing Nothing = Nothing
zeroNothing x@(Just n) =
if n == 0 then Nothing else x
Wolfgang Jeltsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Freitag, 28. Dezember 2007 07:49 schrieben Sie:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:19:47 +0200, Wolfgang Jeltsch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 27. Dezember 2007 16:34 schrieb Cristian Baboi:
I'll have to trust you, because I cannot test it.
Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian Sniffen wrote:
On Dec 28, 2007 6:05 AM, Andrew Coppin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[I actually heard a number of people tell me that learning LISP
would change my life forever because LISP has something called
macros. I tried to learn it, and
Cristian Baboi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you help me find it ?
Watch out for those garbage collectors, they always carry the stuff
away as soon as you turn your back on it.
You can find them easily by spotting stop-and-go traffic on any street.
Wolfgang Jeltsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 27. Dezember 2007 16:34 schrieb Cristian Baboi:
I'll have to trust you, because I cannot test it.
let x=(1:x); y=(1:y) in x==y .
I also cannot test this:
let x=(1:x); y=1:1:y in x==y
In these examples, x and y denote the same
Jonathan Cast [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27 Dec 2007, at 10:44 AM, Achim Schneider wrote:
Wolfgang Jeltsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 27. Dezember 2007 16:34 schrieb Cristian Baboi:
I'll have to trust you, because I cannot test it.
let x=(1:x); y=(1:y) in x==y .
I
Jonathan Cast [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
_|_ is the denotation of every Haskell expression whose
denotation is _|_.
Mu.
Why take away _|_?
Because, when zenning about
instance (Eq a) = Eq [a] where
[] == [] = True
(x:xs) == (y:ys) = x == y xs == ys
_xs== _ys=
Tim Docker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm using a control structure that's a variation of a monad and I'm
interested in whether
- it's got a name
- it deserves a name (!)
- anything else similar is used elsewhere
You might have reinvented arrows in some sense:
501 - 528 of 528 matches
Mail list logo
