On 29 Oct 2002 at 11:22, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
Also the idea of allways using 'function' style for something so
basic like superpositions doesn't appeal to me.
Superpositions are basic in a fabric-of-the-universe kind of
On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 07:18 AM, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
The only thing this inspires in my brain is Schoolhouse Rock
flashbacks.
o/~ Conjuction Junction, what's your function? o/~
Heh. That's what I heard, too.
David
--
David Wheeler AIM:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 06:45:52PM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
You are making the fundamental mistake of thinking superpositions as
superpositions. When thinking them as another-kind-of or/and, their
usefulness comes a lot clearer.
perl5: if $x 0 $x 20 $y 0 $y 20 $z 0 $z 20
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
: On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 06:45:52PM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
:
: You are making the fundamental mistake of thinking superpositions as
: superpositions. When thinking them as another-kind-of or/and, their
: usefulness comes a lot clearer.
:
:
--
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 07:13:40
Damian Conway wrote:
Yes. That superpositions are going to be so widely used once people
catch on, that users going to curse us every time they have to
write Cuse ops ':superpositions'; at the start of every scope.
So, I open my inbox and see that it has
On 29 Oct 2002 at 5:45, Piers Cawley wrote:
Whilst I don't wish to get Medieval on your collective donkey I must
say that I'm really not sure of the utility of the proposed infix
superposition ops. I'm a big fan of any/all/one/none, I just think
that
one(any($a, $b, $c), all($d, $e,
Markus Laire [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 29 Oct 2002 at 5:45, Piers Cawley wrote:
Whilst I don't wish to get Medieval on your collective donkey I must
say that I'm really not sure of the utility of the proposed infix
superposition ops. I'm a big fan of any/all/one/none, I just think
that
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
From: Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 05:45:01 +
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
Whilst I don't wish to get Medieval on your collective donkey I must
say that I'm really not sure of
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
From: Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 05:45:01 +
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
Whilst I don't wish to get Medieval on your collective donkey I
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 09:36:12 +
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
From: Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 05:45:01 +
X-SMTPD:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Markus Laire) writes:
In this case I find the latter to be easier to decode and more
appealing. There are less chars and paretheses are seen much more
easily.
Ack, I guess that means we need a one character DWIM operator.
Although ... comes pretty close, I suppose.
--- Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
one(any($a, $b, $c), all($d, $e, $f))
Is a good deal more intention revealing than the superficially
appealing than
($a $b $c) ^ ( $d | $e | $f )
Would it be practical/meaningful to say
$result = bitwise ($a $b $c) ^ ($d |
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 03:06:51AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
Superpositions will turn out to be unimaginably handy, possibly used
in 10% or 15% of the code, so they get shorter names.
Statements like this bother me. Not because I don't think it might be
true, but because it's in future tense.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Scott Duff) writes:
Statements like this bother me. Not because I don't think it might be
true, but because it's in future tense. If someone (named Damian :-)
wrote a superposition synopsis that showed the many and varied uses of
superpositions in contexts that
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
Also the idea of allways using 'function' style for something so
basic like superpositions doesn't appeal to me.
Superpositions are basic in a fabric-of-the-universe kind of way, but
they are hardly basic in the
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Scott Duff) writes:
Statements like this bother me. Not because I don't think it might be
true, but because it's in future tense. If someone (named Damian :-)
wrote a superposition synopsis that showed the many and varied
At 11:22 AM -0600 10/29/02, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
Also the idea of allways using 'function' style for something so
basic like superpositions doesn't appeal to me.
Superpositions are basic in a fabric-of-the-universe kind of
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: Perhaps the best thing to do is to define a word operator for
: superpositions and, if they later become really popular, snag some
: generally-available* extended character to represent the operators.
Sorry, I believe in the transactional model of QM,
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
: Also the idea of allways using 'function' style for something so
: basic like superpositions doesn't appeal to me.
:
: Superpositions are basic in a fabric-of-the-universe kind of
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 09:08 AM, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Statements like this bother me. Not because I don't think it might be
true, but because it's in future tense. If someone (named Damian :-)
wrote a superposition synopsis that showed the many and varied uses of
superpositions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
So I would look favorably on finding a replacement for superposition.
Predicate calculus? :) Seriously, I see no problem with calling them
set operators.
--
For true believers, LORD would be K\textsc{nuth} in TeX, and
L\textsc{amport} in LaTeX. Atheists
From: Simon Cozens [mailto:simon;ermine.ox.ac.uk]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
So I would look favorably on finding a replacement for
superposition.
Predicate calculus? :) Seriously, I see no problem with
calling them set operators.
Great minds think alike. Or in this case
At 10:02 AM -0800 10/29/02, Larry Wall wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: Perhaps the best thing to do is to define a word operator for
: superpositions and, if they later become really popular, snag some
: generally-available* extended character to represent the operators.
Sorry,
On 29/10/02 09:58 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
So I would look favorably on finding a replacement for superposition.
How about christmasgift or gift?
You don't know what it is until
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:22:36AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
This is why I am nervous about introducing terms like eigenbunny, etc.,
into the general vocabulary of the language. It attempts to make it
sound harder than it is, I think -- there are plenty of uses for these
operators
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:12:28AM -0800, Brian Ingerson wrote:
On 29/10/02 09:58 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
So I would look favorably on finding a replacement for superposition.
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 09:58 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
What kindergartener can't understand a
logically entangled list of nouns?
I want a tricycle or a video game or a teddy bear for Christmas.
I want a tricycle and a video game and a teddy bear for Christmas.
That's no
I think this may be in response to an earlier message of yours looking
for a replacement for superposition. But I recall getting a Dilbert
calendar for Xmas some years back with a cover featuring the PHB saying
I'm not indecisive - I'm flexible!
Thus, flexops. And flexpressions (flexprs, for
Simon Cozens wrote:
In this case I find the latter to be easier to decode and more
appealing. There are less chars and paretheses are seen much more
easily.
Ack, I guess that means we need a one character DWIM operator.
Although ... comes pretty close, I suppose.
Great minds think alike.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:26:56AM -0800, David Wheeler wrote:
Well, I like set operators, too, but what's the grammatical term for
the above logically entangled list of nouns?
I'd call them ents if not for Austin Hastings' more sensible
flexops (unless someone wants to take a stab at
Piers Cawley wrote:
Whilst I don't wish to get Medieval on your collective donkey I must
say that I'm really not sure of the utility of the proposed infix
superposition ops. I'm a big fan of any/all/one/none, I just think
that
one(any($a, $b, $c), all($d, $e, $f))
Is a good deal more
If someone (named Damian :-)
wrote a superposition synopsis that showed the many and varied uses of
superpositions in contexts that ordinary programmers can relate to, it
would bother me less when people make claims about the usefulness of
superpositions.
I'll take one of those for perl.com!
Brian Ingerson writes:
On 29/10/02 09:58 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
So I would look favorably on finding a replacement for superposition.
How about christmasgift or
David Wheeler wrote:
Well, I like set operators, too, but what's the grammatical term for
the above logically entangled list of nouns?
Superposition.
Damian
I confess, I don't get it. To me, it appears to iterate over the input,
printing unique values except that two values ($start, $finish) are
considered to have already been encountered.
If that's all, then okay. But does it somehow skip all entries
before/after the delimiter?
Also, in a related
Brian Ingerson wrote:
Oh! I just remembered the ultimate word for a container. It's cozy, of
course!
Every eigenbunny needs a supercozy!
The plural of which is, presumable, supercozens.
Now *I'm* really scared!
;-)
Damian
At 1:34 PM -0800 10/29/02, Brian Ingerson wrote:
On 29/10/02 14:47 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:22 AM -0800 10/29/02, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
This is why I am nervous about introducing terms like eigenbunny, etc.
Oh, I dunno, I kind of like it. Of course, now my kids want
eigenbunny
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wheeler) writes:
Well, I like set operators, too, but what's the grammatical term for
the above logically entangled list of nouns?
Conjunctions and disjunctions.
--
Wouldn't you love to fill out that report? Company asset #423423
was lost while fighting the forces
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 1:34 PM -0800 10/29/02, Brian Ingerson wrote:
Every eigenbunny needs a supercozy!
Absolutely. Eigenbunnies in supercozens. Sounds like we've found the
mascot for Perl 6!
I really want to work a pear pimples for hairy fishnuts reference in
here
39 matches
Mail list logo
