I think James Bowery's comments are intended to address a real need for
programming languages to work with units of measurement. It might even
prevent aircraft accidents which have really happened because fuel was
delivered in Canadian gallons, or kilograms, when the pilots request was
for
of what seems the
exploitation of a simple opportunity by a few weeks.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Jonathan Lang datawea...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: Commensurability as Key
To: Steve Pitchford steve.pitchf...@gmail.com
On Aug 23
...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: Commensurability as Key
To: Steve Pitchford steve.pitchf...@gmail.com
On Aug 23, 2013, at 1:17 AM, Steve Pitchford steve.pitchf...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think James Bowery's comments are intended to address a real need
On Aug 23, 2013, at 2:41 AM, Steve Pitchford steve.pitchf...@gmail.com wrote:
How would you implement, in a robust way, the following things:
1 kg + 1 kg = 2 kg
2 m * 3 m = 6 m^2
5 kg * (3 m/s)^2 = 45 J
The answer is that you wouldn't - the problem domain is so vague as to be
If I understand you correctly, what you are suggesting is the syntactic
sugar similar to perl 5's overload, but with Object/Class support, support
for autoboxing and a way, either by convention or configuration of
facilitating type conversion and degradation?
So one could write something like:
It is interesting to look at what Julia has done to get numerical performance
from a dynamic language
http://julialang.org/
and julia's visibility in to the internal representation
http://blog.leahhanson.us/julia-introspects.html
Regards,
Todd Olson
Hello,
some clarifications below
On 08/21/2013 05:19 AM, Doug McNutt wrote:
* a function is a subroutine returning a scalar ( see below)
fwiw we don't make that distinction in the specification; we just talk
about subroutines. We can return nothing, a scalar or a non-scalar.
, a
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:19 PM, Doug McNutt dougl...@macnauchtan.comwrote:
I confess. I'm here because I hoped perl 6 would do vector operations
after reading an early small book.
I don't think anyone has said that it won't/can't. Perl 6 indeed returns a
scalar... but that scalar may be a
The terms function and relation as used in programming languages have
meanings carved out of the pure concepts by the, sometimes, judicious
application of Ockham's Chainsaw Massacre in order to get things done.
I am speaking of the pure concepts.
Procedures are sequences of statements.
At 20:27 -0700 8/20/13, Jonathan Lang wrote: Off list accidentally I think.
Could you try to put commensurability into layman's terms? Preferably with a
focus on some of its less obvious advantages.
On Aug 20, 2013, at 8:19 PM, Doug McNutt dougl...@macnauchtan.com wrote:
At 11:41 -0400
I'll bite... this concept of commensurablity is not one I grasp from
your email.
functions are (sugarably) degenerate (many to 1) relations and
procedures are (sugarably) degenerate (state-transition) functions.
Perl many other languages don't have a strong distinction between
functions
At 11:41 -0400 8/20/13, yary wrote:
I'll bite... this concept of commensurablity is not one I grasp from
your email.
functions are (sugarably) degenerate (many to 1) relations and
procedures are (sugarably) degenerate (state-transition) functions.
Perl many other languages don't have a strong
Let's get the basics nailed down and working so that we can learn
them, before wandering any further into theoretical CS.
On 8/18/13, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
Of the two key conceptual gaps in current programming language philosophy
-- commensurability and change propagation --
Maybe Perl 7.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Parrot Raiser 1parr...@gmail.com wrote:
Let's get the basics nailed down and working so that we can learn
them, before wandering any further into theoretical CS.
On 8/18/13, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
Of the two key conceptual
14 matches
Mail list logo
