On 3/12/2012 20:00, Albert van der Horst wrote:
In article4f5df4b3$0$1375$4fafb...@reader1.news.tin.it,
Kiuhnmkiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it wrote:
On 3/12/2012 12:27, Albert van der Horst wrote:
Interestingly in mathematics associative means that it doesn't matter
whether you use (a.b).c or a.(b.c).
On 3/12/2012 20:00, Albert van der Horst wrote:
In article4f5df4b3$0$1375$4fafb...@reader1.news.tin.it,
Kiuhnmkiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it wrote:
On 3/12/2012 12:27, Albert van der Horst wrote:
Interestingly in mathematics associative means that it doesn't matter
whether you use (a.b).c or a.(b.c).
On 3/12/2012 20:00, Albert van der Horst wrote:
[...]
Sorry for triple posting. I hadn't noticed the follow up and I was
blaming my newsserver.
BTW, Python is the next language (right after Perl) I'm going to learn.
Then I'll probably have a look at Ruby...
Kiuhnm
--
In article 0078bbfb-5dfc-48fc-af1a-69de3cf15...@b1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com,
Xah Lee xah...@gmail.com wrote:
New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!
A excerpt from the new book =E3=80=88Modern Perl=E3=80=89, just published, =
chapter 4
on =E2=80=9COperators=E2=80=9D
On 3/12/2012 12:27, Albert van der Horst wrote:
Interestingly in mathematics associative means that it doesn't matter
whether you use (a.b).c or a.(b.c).
Using xxx-associativity to indicate that it *does* matter is
a bit perverse, but the Perl people are not to blame if they use
a term in their
In article 4f5df4b3$0$1375$4fafb...@reader1.news.tin.it,
Kiuhnm kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it wrote:
On 3/12/2012 12:27, Albert van der Horst wrote:
Interestingly in mathematics associative means that it doesn't matter
whether you use (a.b).c or a.(b.c).
Using xxx-associativity to indicate that it
On 3/12/2012 20:00, Albert van der Horst wrote:
In article4f5df4b3$0$1375$4fafb...@reader1.news.tin.it,
Kiuhnmkiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it wrote:
On 3/12/2012 12:27, Albert van der Horst wrote:
Interestingly in mathematics associative means that it doesn't matter
whether you use (a.b).c or a.(b.c).
On Mar 1, 3:00 am, Kiuhnm kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it wrote:
They did not make up the terminology, if that is what you are saying.
The concepts of left and right associativity are well-known and accepted
in TCS (Theoretical CS).
Aho, Sethi and Ullman explain it this way in Compilers: Principles,
On 3/2/2012 14:12, Xah Lee wrote:
On Mar 1, 3:00 am, Kiuhnmkiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it wrote:
They did not make up the terminology, if that is what you are saying.
The concepts of left and right associativity are well-known and accepted
in TCS (Theoretical CS).
Aho, Sethi and Ullman explain it
On 3/1/2012 1:02, Xah Lee wrote:
i missed a point in my original post. That is, when the same operator
are adjacent. e.g. 「3 ▲ 6 ▲ 5」.
This is pointed out by Kiuhnm 〔kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it〕 and Tim Bradshaw.
Thanks.
though, i disagree the way they expressed it, or any sense this is
different
First of all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5jKMEB4hHE
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:09:16AM -0800, Xah Lee wrote:
Now, let me tell you what operator precedence is. First of all, let's
limit ourselfs to discuss operators that are so-called binary
operators, which, in our context, basically
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:09:16 -0800, Xah Lee wrote:
Xah, you won't grow even an inch taller by cutting others down.
--
I joined scientology at a garage sale!!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!
A excerpt from the new book 〈Modern Perl〉, just published, chapter 4
on “Operators”. Quote:
«The associativity of an operator governs whether it evaluates from
left to right or right to left. Addition is left associative
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:09:16 -0800, Xah Lee wrote:
Personally, I think this whole issue of precedence in a programming
language is over-rated. It seems to me that grouping of any non-trivial
set of calculations should be done so as to remove any possible confusion
as to intent. It is one
On 2/29/2012 9:09, Xah Lee wrote:
New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!
A excerpt from the new book 〈Modern Perl〉, just published, chapter 4
on “Operators”. Quote:
«The associativity of an operator governs whether it evaluates from
left to right or right to left
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Chiron chiron...@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I think this whole issue of precedence in a programming
language is over-rated. It seems to me that grouping of any non-trivial
set of calculations should be done so as to remove any possible confusion
as to
Xah Lee xah...@gmail.com writes:
A excerpt from the new book 〈Modern Perl〉, just published, chapter 4
on “Operators”. Quote:
«The associativity of an operator governs whether it evaluates from
left to right or right to left. Addition is left associative, such
that 2 + 3 + 4 evaluates 2 + 3
On 2/29/2012 16:15, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
[...] 'mathematics' (an essentially
outdated write-only programming language dating back to the times
when humans had to perform computations themselves) [...]
Theoretical Computer Science is a branch of mathematics. Are you saying
it is outdated?
On Feb 29, 5:09 am, Xah Lee xah...@gmail.com wrote:
New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!
A excerpt from the new book 〈Modern Perl〉, just published, chapter 4
on “Operators”. Quote:
«The associativity of an operator governs whether it evaluates from
left to right
ass!
Xah
On Feb 29, 4:08 am, Kiuhnm kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it wrote:
On 2/29/2012 9:09, Xah Lee wrote:
New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!
A excerpt from the new book 〈Modern Perl〉, just published, chapter 4
on “Operators”. Quote:
«The associativity
20 matches
Mail list logo
