> "DC" == Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DC> On 21/02/07, Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [Off-list]
DC> Apparently not.
DC> Just pretend I'm not here.
DC> ;-)
we can't pretend as we can sense your mad scientist brain across the big
waters. there ain't enoug
Thomas Wittek wrote:
Damian Conway schrieb:
If the very much more readable 'zip' and 'minmax' are
to be replaced with 'ZZ' and 'MM', then I think that's a serious step
backwards in usability.
Fully agree here and I think that there are still even more places,
where the usability could be impro
On 2/21/07, Thomas Wittek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Damian Conway schrieb:
> If the very much more readable 'zip' and 'minmax' are
> to be replaced with 'ZZ' and 'MM', then I think that's a serious step
> backwards in usability.
Fully agree here and I think that there are still even more places
Damian Conway schrieb:
> If the very much more readable 'zip' and 'minmax' are
> to be replaced with 'ZZ' and 'MM', then I think that's a serious step
> backwards in usability.
Fully agree here and I think that there are still even more places,
where the usability could be improved:
Say more words
On Feb 20, 2007, at 3:42 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
I think the ¥ and Y operators are going to have to change to
something else.
The current Y has at least four strikes against it:
* It's an ASCII version of a cute Unicode picture, but other
than that,
the picture it doesn't remind
Damian Conway wrote:
> I'd be more inclined to go
> the other way and say that you can transform any list infix form to
> the corresponding function form:
>
> @a ZZ @b ZZ @c -> zip operator
> ZZ(@a; @b; @c) -> zip function
>
> @a XX @b XX @c -> cross operator
> XX(@a; @b; @c) ->
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 08:50:07PM -0500, Joe Gottman wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: >Hmm, but then what corresponds to XX? I'd be more inclined to go
: >the other way and say that you can transform any list infix form to
: >the corresponding function form:
: >
: >@a ZZ @b ZZ @c -> zip operator
On 21/02/07, Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[Off-list]
Apparently not.
Just pretend I'm not here.
;-)
Damian
[Off-list]
I'd be more inclined to go
the other way and say that you can transform any list infix form to
the corresponding function form:
@a ZZ @b ZZ @c -> zip operator
ZZ(@a; @b; @c) -> zip function
@a XX @b XX @c -> cross operator
XX(@a; @b; @c) -> cross function
@a X*
Larry Wall wrote:
Hmm, but then what corresponds to XX? I'd be more inclined to go
the other way and say that you can transform any list infix form to
the corresponding function form:
@a ZZ @b ZZ @c -> zip operator
ZZ(@a; @b; @c) -> zip function
@a XX @b XX @c -> cross operator
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 12:49:20AM +0100, Thomas Wittek wrote:
: Larry Wall schrieb:
: > I think the ¥ and Y operators are going to have to change to something else.
:
: Very probably I missed something as I'm only a distant observer of the
: Perl6 development: Why not just call it "zip"?!
: There
Thomas Wittek wrote:
Larry Wall schrieb:
> I think the ¥ and Y operators are going to have to change to something else.
Very probably I missed something as I'm only a distant observer of the
Perl6 development: Why not just call it "zip"?!
There is a function called zip, wouldn't it be possible t
Larry Wall schrieb:
> I think the ¥ and Y operators are going to have to change to something else.
Very probably I missed something as I'm only a distant observer of the
Perl6 development: Why not just call it "zip"?!
There is a function called zip, wouldn't it be possible to create an
operator wi
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 12:42, Larry Wall wrote:
> 'Course, if someone goes ahead and adds the Y combinator, one must
> naturally begin to wonder what the YY combinator would be... :-)
Obviously it generates a function so anonymous that it can't even refer to
itself. I call it the depresse
14 matches
Mail list logo
