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
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 13:09:37 -0800 (PST), Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do your read $a ! $b ! $c?
Neither $a nor $b nor $c.
What? Aren't you able to see this invisible neither operator just at
the front? ;-)
/L/e/k/t/u
This is exactly what I wanted .= for.
@array .= splice(2,0,$element); # in-place, @array = @array.splice
@new = @array.splice(2,0,$element);
$sentence .= lcfirst;
The semantics are pretty clear, then it's just up to the compiler to optimize
it for in-place. Perhaps functions could
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Damian Conway wrote:
Or one could define a copy-the-invoke method call operator (say, C+.):
As a rule I prefer to see safe operations have short names and
dangergous operations with longer ones. In this context that means copy
gets the short name and in place gets the
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
From: Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 05:45:01 +
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
Whilst I don't wish to get Medieval on your collective donkey I
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 09:36:12 +
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
From: Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 05:45:01 +
X-SMTPD:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Markus Laire) writes:
In this case I find the latter to be easier to decode and more
appealing. There are less chars and paretheses are seen much more
easily.
Ack, I guess that means we need a one character DWIM operator.
Although ... comes pretty close, I suppose.
--- Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
one(any($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
On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 01:25 PM, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Again, I'm wondering if we're going about this wrong way -- perhaps we
need to go to more effort to save ^ as xor, and use something
different for hypers, like h+ or h[+] or `+ or ~+ or ~~+, etc?
OK, I'm calling Warnock's on
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.
Oh boy, I just *hate* the idea of CX for xor.
Hate it, hate it, hate it! Yuck, yuck, yuck!
But I do like Michael's idea of using C as the hyperoperator marker
(the array connotation works well, I think). The only problem is that
we end up with too many C's in most expressions:
$count = a + b;
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
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 11:21 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
My personal favorite solution is to use square brackets (for their dual
array and indexing connotations, and because they highlight the
operator
so nicely):
$count = a + b;
sums = a [+] b;
Any ideas on what
{ $^a op $^b }
Can we have a secret handshake, too? Will we be blamed for the secret
features of the new US dollar bill?
You know that eye-in-the-pyramid looking thingy? Well, notice what
character on the COMPUTER KEYBOARD that looks like? It's not by
coincidence that many of the programmers at the Treasury
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Any ideas on what
{ $^a op $^b }
would become?
It would be unchanged. Placeholders have nothing to do with hyperoperators.
And never have had.
Damian
Uri Guttman wrote:
what is a string complement? bitwise? i take it the numeric is one's
complement.
String complement treats the value as a string then bitwise complements every
bit of each character.
Integer complement treats the value as a int then bitwise complements every
bit.
DC
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 Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 11:47 AM, Luke Palmer wrote:
[i.e. this change doesn't make any difference]
Doh! You're right, of course. For some reason I was thinking a long
while back that it would be confusing to have
{ $^a op $^b }
if ^ went back to meaning xor. But there's the
damian's syntax table and his use of the term vectorizing made me wonder
why we call his [op] thing a hyperoperator? the word hyper i assume came
from hyperdimensional. but calling [] the vectorizing (or just vectored)
op variant makes much more sense.
@sum = @a [+] @b ;
that reads as
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:26:56AM -0800, David Wheeler wrote:
Well, I like set operators, too, but what's the grammatical term for
the above logically entangled list of nouns?
I'd call them ents if not for Austin Hastings' more sensible
flexops (unless someone wants to take a stab at
Scott Duff wrote:
Actually, I think we need a universal method on scalars that
gives the eigenstates of that value. It might be C$val.eigenstates
or maybe just C$val.states. The method would work on non-superimposed
values as well, in which cases it would just return a list containing
the value
Piers Cawley wrote:
Whilst I don't wish to get Medieval on your collective donkey I must
say that I'm really not sure of the utility of the proposed infix
superposition ops. I'm a big fan of any/all/one/none, I just think
that
one(any($a, $b, $c), all($d, $e, $f))
Is a good deal more
If someone (named Damian :-)
wrote a superposition synopsis that showed the many and varied uses of
superpositions in contexts that ordinary programmers can relate to, it
would bother me less when people make claims about the usefulness of
superpositions.
I'll take one of those for perl.com!
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 06:51:14AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
String complement treats the value as a string then bitwise complements every
bit of each character.
Is that the complement of the codepoint or the individual bytes?
(I'm thinking utf8 here).
--
Nothing ventured, nothing lost.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 02:55:57PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
damian's syntax table and his use of the term vectorizing made me wonder
why we call his [op] thing a hyperoperator? the word hyper i assume came
from hyperdimensional. but calling [] the vectorizing (or just vectored)
op variant
Brian Ingerson writes:
On 29/10/02 09:58 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
So I would look favorably on finding a replacement for superposition.
How about christmasgift or
Larry...
would look favorably on finding a replacement for superposition.
any(
multivalue,
multival,
opval= andval|orval|xorval|nandval,
opval= andval|orval|exval|nonval,
opval= allval|anyval|oneval|noneval,
set = andset|orset|xorset|nandset,
set =
David Wheeler wrote:
Well, I like set operators, too, but what's the grammatical term for
the above logically entangled list of nouns?
Superposition.
Damian
I confess, I don't get it. To me, it appears to iterate over the input,
printing unique values except that two values ($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
Damian Conway writes:
My personal favorite solution is to use square brackets (for their dual
array and indexing connotations, and because they highlight the operator
so nicely):
$count = a + b;
sums = a [+] b;
Mmm, yummy. I do have a question though (and apologies if I've
Buddha Buck wrote:
I was wondering...
How persistant are superpositions? How pervasive are they?
As I mentioned in a recent post, would expect them to be all-pervasive
and fully propagating.
I mean, will the following work?
I would certainly hope so! (modulo the syntax snafu)
In fact,
Aaron Crane wrote:
Mmm, yummy. I do have a question though (and apologies if I've merely
missed the answer). We've got two productive operation-formation rules: one
saying add a final = to operate-and-assign, and the other saying wrap in
[] to vectorise. But no-one's said which order they
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 01:50 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
PS: Is anyone collecting these examples. It would make writing that
perl.com
article much easier for me ;-)
But of course! Piers is summarizing this entire thread -- right,
Piers? :-)
Aaron Crane wrote:
x [+]= y;
I
On 30/10/02 08:36 +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
Brian Ingerson wrote:
Speaking of persistence, I just realized I'll need to start thinking about
YAML serializations of superpositions. My first cut at it would be:
---
letters: !super [0, 1, 2]
digits: !super
- 0
OK, perl6-language is getting scary again ;-) So here's something else
to think about. Code coverage.
We don't have to worry about how to do it here. That's a problem for
internals, and they seem to be solving it quite well without my
interference at the moment, even if they are not aware of
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 21:37:32 +
From: Aaron Crane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
Damian Conway writes:
My personal favorite solution is to use square
Interesting point, especially if operator:+= can be overloaded.
@a [+=] @b;
implies iteratively invoking operator:+=, whereas
@a [+]= @b;
implies assigning the result of iteratively invoking operator:+
It only matters when they're different. :-|
And, of course, if they ARE different then
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
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:19:59 -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
So I would like to see able to tag arbitrary information onto just about
everything, including files, packages, classes, subroutines, blocks, control
structures, statements, lines, expressions, variables and whatever else I've
forgotten
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
:x [+]= y;
:
: I guess that's OK looking, tho either is fine with me.
My only syntactic quibble with [+] is that it's officially ambiguous
when it's a unary operator:
a = [+]b
could also be the start of
a = [+1, +2, +3]
Or worse:
Okay, For those of you playing the home game, Take 5, with Damian
Larry's latest inputs. ^ means xor again, and a few things have been
removed. Comments?
Note that I will next post a list of hyperoperators _separately_.
If the design team could take a look, esp. at the remaining questions,
For this version of the operator list, (since I am unsure that _every_
unary/binary op has a meaningful hyper, and some tentatively have
_two_) I have placed all of them in EXPLICITLY. Please check that I
didn't miss any, or put any in that are incorrect.
hyperoperators:
[op] - as prefix
[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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Mitchell) writes:
(I'm thinking utf8 here).
I'd strongly advise against that.
--
Ermine? NO thanks. I take MINE black.
- Henry Braun is Oxford Zippy
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
:(is whitespace allowed inside the brackets, e.g. [ + ] vs. [+] ?)
I don't think so.
: unary (prefix) operators:
:. - method call on current topic
I think we have to have unary .= as well, if we're to do the
.=replace
trick on $_.
:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: For this version of the operator list, (since I am unsure that _every_
: unary/binary op has a meaningful hyper, and some tentatively have
: _two_) I have placed all of them in EXPLICITLY. Please check that I
: didn't miss any, or put any in that
On 30 Oct 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Mitchell) writes:
: (I'm thinking utf8 here).
:
: I'd strongly advise against that.
Actually, it works out rather well in practice, because the string
abstraction in Perl is that of a sequence of codepoints. But at
least in Perl 5,
At 1:20 AM + 10/30/02, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Mitchell) writes:
(I'm thinking utf8 here).
I'd strongly advise against that.
I'd agree. Thinking UTF-8 is generally a bad idea.
If you think anything, think fixed-size code points, since that's
what you're ultimately
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Martin D Kealey wrote:
: Hmmm...
:
: I've heard that this is a culturally driven thing: that whilst people can
: all disambiguate it, people from different cultures may do so differently
:
: In a western culture, exclusive-or is the assumed default unless context
: implies
Larry Wall:
# So I'm actually being a bit culturally imperialistic in
# pushing for noun disjunctions. But I'm an American, and
# nobody expects better of me. :-)
I would argue that you should draw on useful concepts from any language,
not paying any attention to their existence in other
Larry Wall [mailto:larry;wall.org] wrote:
: unary (postfix) operators:
:... - [maybe] same as ..Inf [Damian votes Yes]
I wonder if we can possibly get the Rubyesque leaving out of
endpoints by saying something like 1..!10.
Perhaps we could use the less-than symbol: 1 .. 10
Luke Palmer [mailto:fibonaci;babylonia.flatirons.org] wrote:
for x | y - $x is rw | $y {
$x += $y
}
This superposition stuff is getting to me: I had a double-take,
wondering why we were iterating with superpositions (Bitops
never entered my mind). Did the C; ever
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, David Whipp wrote:
: Luke Palmer [mailto:fibonaci;babylonia.flatirons.org] wrote:
:
:for x | y - $x is rw | $y {
:$x += $y
:}
:
: This superposition stuff is getting to me: I had a double-take,
: wondering why we were iterating with superpositions
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Brent Dax wrote:
: (I think that at one point you mentioned that 'it' is implicit in
: Japanese--so does $_ qualify? :^) )
Only when you leave it out. Kind of like the cat.
Larry
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Austin Hastings wrote:
Hell, we might as well throw in multiple dispatch.
Actually, I am really hoping we do.
Any of you OO guys know of a case where
$a = $a + $b; # A [+]= B; -- A = A [+] B;
and
$a += $b; # A [+=] B;
should be different?
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
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, David Whipp wrote:
: Larry Wall [mailto:larry;wall.org] wrote:
: : unary (postfix) operators:
: :... - [maybe] same as ..Inf [Damian votes Yes]
:
: I wonder if we can possibly get the Rubyesque leaving out of
: endpoints by saying something like 1..!10.
:
:
Larry Wall wrote:
:... - [maybe] range, exclusive of endpoint [Damian votes No]
Could have ^..^ and ^..too, for all that.
OK, I just gotta say, that's _d*mn_ clever. Exclusive of endpoint --
It looks like what it is, and vice versa. I guess that's why you're our
fearless leader. :-)
: I wonder if we can possibly get the Rubyesque leaving out of
: endpoints by saying something like 1..!10.
:
: Similarly: 1 .. 10 == 2..9
There's also an issue of what (1..10) - 1 would or should
mean, if anything. Does it mean (1..9)? Does 1 + (1..10)
mean (2..10)?
And what
Larry Wall:
# Of course, Real Mathematicians will want [1..10) and (1..10] instead.
#
# Double ick.
Reminds me of the number-line notation you learn about *before*
precalculus (or whatever the value of
$you.schooling.grade[12].class{math}.name is) confuses everything, with
open vs. closed
Brent Dax wrote:
Larry Wall:
# There's also an issue of what (1..10) - 1 would or should
# mean, if anything. Does it mean (1..9)? Does 1 + (1..10)
Actually, I would at first glance think, based on the parens, that:
(1..10)-1
means
((1-1)..(10-1))
means
(0..9)
78 matches
Mail list logo
