Teemu Likonen wrote:
Please don't forget that the whole point of Lisps' (f x) syntax is that
code is also Lisp data.
It's possible to design other syntaxes that have a similar
property. Prolog, for example -- a Prolog program is expressed
in terms of Prolog data structures, yet it manages to h
Neil Cerutti writes:
> On 2011-07-12, Petter Gustad wrote:
>> Xah Lee writes:
>>
>>> it's funny, in all these supposedly modern high-level langs, they
>>> don't provide even simple list manipulation functions such as union,
>>> intersection, and the like. Not in perl, not in python, not in lisp
* 2011-07-13T10:34:41-04:00 * Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 7/13/2011 4:29 AM, Teemu Likonen wrote:
>> Please don't forget that the whole point of Lisps' (f x) syntax is
>> that code is also Lisp data.
>
> Thank you for clarifying that. Some Lispers appear to promote the
> simple, uniform syntax' as a e
On 7/13/2011 4:29 AM, Teemu Likonen wrote:
* 2001-01-01T14:11:11-05:00 * Terry Reedy wrote:
As a side note, the same principle of expressions matching operations
in symmetry suggest that majority of up are quite sensible and not
dumb idiots for preferring 'f(x)' to the '(f x)' of Lisp. In a
fun
On Wednesday, July 13, 2011 05:34:23 AM Terry Reedy did opine:
> On 7/12/2011 2:23 PM, gene heskett wrote:
> > Now, I hate to mention it Terry, but your clock seems to be about 126
> > months behind the rest of the world.
>
> Please do not hate to be helpful. It was a bad malfunction perhaps due
* 2001-01-01T14:11:11-05:00 * Terry Reedy wrote:
> As a side note, the same principle of expressions matching operations
> in symmetry suggest that majority of up are quite sensible and not
> dumb idiots for preferring 'f(x)' to the '(f x)' of Lisp. In a
> function call, the function has a differe
On Jul 13, 9:39 am, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 7/12/2011 2:23 PM, gene heskett wrote:
>
> > Now, I hate to mention it Terry, but your clock seems to be about 126
> > months behind the rest of the world.
>
> Please do not hate to be helpful.
Ha Ha. Cute one. Thanks
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/
On 7/12/2011 2:23 PM, gene heskett wrote:
Now, I hate to mention it Terry, but your clock seems to be about 126
months behind the rest of the world.
Please do not hate to be helpful. It was a bad malfunction perhaps due
to a run-down battery on a machine turned off for two weeks. I will keep
In article <4e1cf936.4050...@canterbury.ac.nz>,
Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Xah Lee wrote:
> > they
> > don't provide even simple list manipulation functions such as union,
> > intersection, and the like. Not in perl, not in python, not in lisps.
>
> Since 2.5 or so, Python has a built-in set type t
Xah Lee wrote:
they
don't provide even simple list manipulation functions such as union,
intersection, and the like. Not in perl, not in python, not in lisps.
Since 2.5 or so, Python has a built-in set type that
provides these (which is arguably a better place for them
than lists).
--
Greg
--
Neil Cerutti writes:
> What's the rationale for providing them? Are the definitions
> obvious for collections that a not sets?
The rational is to prove that Xah is dumb.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.
Petter Gustad wrote:
> Xah Lee writes:
>
> > it's funny, in all these supposedly modern high-level langs, they
> > don't provide even simple list manipulation functions such as union,
> > intersection, and the like. Not in perl, not in python, not in lisps.
>
> In Common Lisp you have:
>
> CL-
On 2011-07-12, Petter Gustad wrote:
> Xah Lee writes:
>
>> it's funny, in all these supposedly modern high-level langs, they
>> don't provide even simple list manipulation functions such as union,
>> intersection, and the like. Not in perl, not in python, not in lisps.
>
> In Common Lisp you have
Xah Lee writes:
> it's funny, in all these supposedly modern high-level langs, they
> don't provide even simple list manipulation functions such as union,
> intersection, and the like. Not in perl, not in python, not in lisps.
In Common Lisp you have:
CL-USER> (union '(a b c) '(b c d))
(A B C D
On Tuesday, July 12, 2011 02:08:02 PM Terry Reedy did opine:
> On 7/11/2011 11:37 PM, Xah Lee wrote:
> > watch the first episode of Douglas Crockford's talk here:
> > http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/theater/video.php?v=crockonjs-1
>
> The link includes a transcript of the talk, which I read
>
>
On 7/11/2011 11:37 PM, Xah Lee wrote:
watch the first episode of Douglas Crockford's talk here:
http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/theater/video.php?v=crockonjs-1
The link includes a transcript of the talk, which I read
I suspect Lee likes Crockford because they both think they are smarter
than
I think the problem with so-called "forward looking" or "highest
level" languages is that they tend to become domain specific. What
Lispers are always saying is construct your own high level language
out of your favorite Lisp. Of course no one else will use it then, or
even discuss it, unless you
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Xah Lee wrote:
>
> it's funny, in all these supposedly modern high-level langs, they
> don't provide even simple list manipulation functions such as union,
> intersection, and the like. Not in perl, not in python, not in lisps.
> (sure, lib exists, but it's a ride
Xah Lee wrote:
> it's funny, in all these supposedly modern high-level langs, they
> don't provide even simple list manipulation functions such as union,
> intersection, and the like. Not in perl, not in python, not in lisps.
Ruby has them.
Intersection:
[2,3,5,8] & [0,2,4,6,8]
==>[2, 8]
U
I might argue that it isn't quite right (or politic) to call those who
resist technological changes "idiots" so much as to observe they often
have goals which cannot wait for the ideal expressive system. People
love python not because Python is the platonic programming language,
but because it doe
On 7/11/2011 11:37 PM, Xah Lee wrote:
it's funny, in all these supposedly modern high-level langs, they
don't provide even simple list manipulation functions such as union,
intersection, and the like. Not in perl, not in python,
Union and intersection are set operations, not list operations. Py
2011-07-11
On Jul 11, 6:51 am, jvt wrote:
> I might as well toss my two cents in here. Xah, I don't believe that
> the functional programming idiom demands that we construct our entire
> program out of compositions and other combinators without ever naming
> anything. That is much more the pro
22 matches
Mail list logo
