Herein are drafty grumblings.
Part of quitting smoking is that my hubris has gone back up.
Here are critical first-impression notes on Apo3. Praise has
been eliminated to save space.
http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2001/10/02/apocalypse3.html?page=1
Operator precedence should be as simple
At 02:18 PM 10/4/2001 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
** Miscellaneous
Why 'operator:+' instead of 'operator::+'? (Other than the
potential verbosity required to declare operators within a
particular package.) I would think it more intuitive to think of
'operator' as a
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 11:17:38AM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
Hmmm...does anyone else remember when the suggestion that '.' continue to be
used as the concat operator in Perl 6 was shouted down because it would
require space on either side of it? It seems to me that we've come full
circle
On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Damian Conway wrote:
A false economy. We should encourage Larry as often as we can.
After all, is it any wonder that it's so long between Apocalypses when
every time he releases one, he gets nothing but negative feedback?
Hm, that never occured to me. In that case, let
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 05:59:53PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
Hyperoperators:
I sort of understand it, but don't really grok it. I can sort of
thing of ways it might eliminate the need for a few maps and
foreaches. Damian, might I request some clarification in
At 02:18 PM 10/4/2001 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
** Miscellaneous
Why 'operator:+' instead of 'operator::+'? (Other than the
potential verbosity required to declare operators within a
particular package.) I would think it more intuitive to think
Hyper operators with operands of different size are partly covered
in A3:
Hyper operators will also intuit where a dimension is missing from one
of its arguments, and replicate a scalar value to a list value in that
dimension. That means you can say:
@a ^+ 1
The former example a
On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Backtracking is at the heart of Logic Programming (or Declarative
Programming, if you like). This is one of the 3 main programming paradigms
(along with procedural and functional). The most popular Declarative
language is Prolog. It is great
On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Stephane Payrard wrote:
Hyper operators with operands of different size are partly covered
in A3:
Hyper operators will also intuit where a dimension is missing from one
of its arguments, and replicate a scalar value to a list value in that
dimension. That means
Backtracking:
Ok, I don't get it at all. Damian, clarification?
Nothing to clarify. Larry punted (to a later Apocalypse).
Okay. That's a cop-out. He's basically saying that you can write
Candthen and Corthen yourself as:
snip
I
At 09:52 PM 10/4/2001 +, Stephane Payrard wrote:
Really hyper-operator is too long :)
How do you say mot valise in English to denote this conflation of words,
I think Lewis Caroll had a word for that.
I'm pretty sure you're looking for Portmanteau...
Or even
for my $x (1..98) {
for my $y (1..(99-$x)) {
for my $z (1..(100-$x-$y)) {
print $x, $y, $z\n if $x ** 2 = $y ** 2 + $z ** 2;
}
}
}
Sure. Depending on whether you want combinations or permutations.
Damian
Michael G Schwern wrote:
Binary ;
This worries me. Giving ; two meanings makes basic language parsing
harder, which would be fine if there was a big payoff, but there's
not. Just making shorthand for [[1,2,3],[4,5,6]] doesn't seem worth
it. What am I missing here?
What you might be
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 08:29:10PM -0500, David Nicol wrote:
Binary //
The analogy to || is probably a bit too clever. My first reaction
was it's some sort of weird division operator. But it's servicable.
It echoes the switch from | to / within the IETF RFC syntax declaration
Damian == Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Damian Personally, I think:
Damian foreach my $x (1..99) {
Damian foreach my $y (1..99) {
Damian foreach my $z (1..99) {
Damian print $x, $y, $z\n if $x**2 == $y**2 + $z**2;
Damian }}}
15 matches
Mail list logo
