On Tue, 2001-10-09 at 22:42, Damian Conway wrote:
Brent asked:
If we have 'and', 'or' and 'xor', can we have 'dor' (defined or) to be a
low-precedence version of this?
I actually suggested exactly that to Larry a few weeks back.
He likes the idea, but is having trouble finding
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:42:29 +1000 (EST), Damian Conway wrote:
Brent asked:
If we have 'and', 'or' and 'xor', can we have 'dor' (defined or) to be a
low-precedence version of this?
I actually suggested exactly that to Larry a few weeks back.
He likes the idea, but is having trouble
Bart Lateur:
# On Thu, 4 Oct 2001 03:22:55 -0400, Michael G Schwern 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.
#
# I think it's very cute. I think of it as a skewed or, which
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 08:35:10AM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
Bart Lateur:
# On Thu, 4 Oct 2001 03:22:55 -0400, Michael G Schwern 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.
Brent Dax wrote:
If we have 'and', 'or' and 'xor', can we have 'dor' (defined or) to be a
low-precedence version of this?
Oh man. If we've gone so far as 'dor', why not make it 'doh' :-)
print stomach_state @beer,@donuts doh burp!!!
--
-- Tim Conrow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 11:49:15AM -0700, Tim Conrow wrote:
Brent Dax wrote:
If we have 'and', 'or' and 'xor', can we have 'dor' (defined or) to be a
low-precedence version of this?
Oh man. If we've gone so far as 'dor', why not make it 'doh' :-)
print stomach_state @beer,@donuts
Brent asked:
If we have 'and', 'or' and 'xor', can we have 'dor' (defined or) to be a
low-precedence version of this?
I actually suggested exactly that to Larry a few weeks back.
He likes the idea, but is having trouble finding an acceptable name for the
operator.
Damian
David M. Lloyd wrote:
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
I think this would be interesting for U :)
http://www.cs.yorku.ca/Courses/3401/lectures/340198-11-27HTML/
http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/local/books/nlp-in-prolog/ch04/chapter-04-sh-1.5.
html#sh-1.5
| On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote:
|
| Backtracking is at the heart of Logic
Thus it was written in the epistle of David Nicol,
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
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
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
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
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 }}}
17 matches
Mail list logo
