Re: Arrays and general function representation

1992-09-03 Thread Ken Sailor
for the two. Ken Sailor [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Arrays and general function representation

1992-09-03 Thread Ken Sailor
for the two. Ken Sailor [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Arrays and general functions

1992-09-08 Thread Ken Sailor
David Barton writes: And finally, it makes sense to have separate syntax for arrays and general functions, because different behavior is expected for the two. Here, I may be exposing my cluelessness, but this seems a (search for a better word --- none found) silly statement. There are

No Subject

1992-09-23 Thread Ken Sailor
Subject: Re: Arrays and general functions Reginald Meeson writes Interesting discussion, but it seems to me that Haskell already provides the best of both worlds, namely a. Efficient implementation of arrays as data objects, with indexing as a projection function; and

Re: n+k patterns

1993-05-18 Thread Ken Sailor
I like the capability to redefine syntax. For example, I would like to be able to define syntax that looks like EBNF when writing parsers. I would like to be able to write E = T {(`+`|`-`) T} rather than e = concat1 (t,zeroOrMore (concat2 (alternative (lit '+',lit '-'),t))) Of course infix