, i.e., (2^(3^4))
>
> Etc.
>
> -
> Hugh Miller
> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Darren Duncan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 2:00 AM
> To: p6l
> Subject: Re: Query re: duction and precedence.
) =defn 1= 2 3 ^ 4 ^ , i.e., (2^3)^4
[^] (2 3 4) = defn 2= 2 3 4 ^^ , i.e., (2^(3^4))
Etc.
-
Hugh Miller
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Darren Duncan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 2:00 AM
To: p6l
Subject: Re: Query re: duction and
HaloO,
Darren Duncan wrote:
For other operators, non-assoc etc, the work will probably all have to
be linear. Eg difference|quotient|exponentiation.
That's why I would rename the left and right operator associativity
to left and right sequentiality. Note that there's a fundamental
difference
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm a believer in generalizing where possible, modulo the principles
> of KISS and YAGNI. The latter essentially means "at least make it
> general enough that you can extend it later without major retooling if
> it turns
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 08:21:39AM -0700, Mark A. Biggar wrote:
> The reduce meta-operator over - in APL gives alternating sum, similarly
> alternating quotient for /, which only works if you right associate
> things.
>
> [-] 1,2,3,4,5,6 => 1-2+3-4+5-6 # pseudo-apl
>
> [/] 1,2,3,4,5,6 => (1*3*5
Mark J. Reed wrote:
I'm a believer in generalizing where possible, modulo the principles
of KISS and YAGNI. The latter essentially means "at least make it
general enough that you can extend it later without major retooling if
it turns out YNIAA.". It's pretty surprising what can turn out to be
u
I'm a believer in generalizing where possible, modulo the principles
of KISS and YAGNI. The latter essentially means "at least make it
general enough that you can extend it later without major retooling if
it turns out YNIAA.". It's pretty surprising what can turn out to be
useful, so I've never b
Mark J. Reed wrote:
You anticipated me. So, is there a core method for
foldl/foldr/inject/reduce, or do you have to roll your own as in p5?
On 3/29/08, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 10:18:53PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: In general, is
:
: [op] (p1,p2,p3,p4...)
You anticipated me. So, is there a core method for
foldl/foldr/inject/reduce, or do you have to roll your own as in p5?
On 3/29/08, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 10:18:53PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> : In general, is
> :
> : [op] (p1,p2,p3,p4...)
> :
> : expec
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 10:18:53PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: In general, is
:
: [op] (p1,p2,p3,p4...)
:
: expected to return the same result as
:
: p1 op p2 op p3 op p4...
:
: including precedence considerations?
:
: That is, should
:
: [**](2,3,4)
:
: return 2^(3^4)=2^81, or (2^3)^4 = 40
10 matches
Mail list logo