I wrote:
In the general case, if your language has both pure and impure
functions, proving (at compile time) that something is not impure is an
NP-complete problem.
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Mark Biggar wrote:
Worse it's equivalent to the halting problem (I.e., not solvable).
Quite correct, my
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Martin D Kealey wrote:
Rather, let's have immutable time values, and methods which return other
values where various computations (*1) have been applied. Provide
constructors which take the Y/M/D/h/m/s/dst_now/dst_rule
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Mark J. Reed wrote:
( $a = any(-1,+1) = $b ) == ( $a = any(-1,+1) any(-1,+1) = $b
)
Clearly, the RHS is true for $a == $b == 0, but I'm not sure the LHS
shouldn't also be. Isn't it just syntactic sugar for the RHS?
I suspect not. Rather I think that
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Jon Lang wrote:
Another issue: what happens if conditional code mutates a junction
that it filtered? For example:
$x = any (-5 .. 5);
if $x 0 { $x++ };
At this point, which of the following does $x equal?
any(-4 .. 6) # the original junction gets mutated
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012, Stephen Pollei wrote:
If it says it might be prime it's
about a 50% 50% split if it's correct.
According to Wolfram, it's 75/25; so a positive result after 10 iterations
leaves about a one-in-a-million chance of being composite (more precisely,
one in 1048576).
multi
