George Neuner wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 21:03:44 + (UTC), Martin Gregorie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:04:05 -0700, Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
wrote:
From: George Neuner [EMAIL PROTECTED] A friend of mine had an
early 8080 micros that was programmed through
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 20:48:23 -0400, George Neuner wrote:
I don't know the correct term, but what I was talking about was a tiny
switch with a 1/2 inch metal handle that looks like a longish grain of
rice. We used to call them knife switches because after hours
flipping them they would feel
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock)
In the LGP-30, they used hex addresses, sort of[1], but the
opcodes (all 16 of them) had single-letter mnemonics chosen so that
the low 4 bits of the character codes *were* the correct nibble for
the opcode! ;-}
That's a fascinating design constraint!
Robert Maas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+---
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock)
| In the LGP-30, they used hex addresses, sort of[1], but the
| opcodes (all 16 of them) had single-letter mnemonics chosen so that
| the low 4 bits of the character codes *were* the correct nibble
From: George Neuner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A friend of mine had an early 8080 micros that was programmed
through the front panel using knife switches
When you say knife switches, do you mean the kind that are shaped
like flat paddles? I think that would be the IMSAI, which came
after the ALTAIR.
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:04:05 -0700, Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
wrote:
From: George Neuner [EMAIL PROTECTED] A friend of mine had an
early 8080 micros that was programmed through the front panel using
knife switches
When you say knife switches, do you mean the kind that are shaped
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 21:03:44 + (UTC), Martin Gregorie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:04:05 -0700, Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
wrote:
From: George Neuner [EMAIL PROTECTED] A friend of mine had an
early 8080 micros that was programmed through the front panel using
* but
in fixed point hardware it all got a bit convoluted.
Phil (KDF9 Fan)
-Original Message-
From: Phil Runciman
Sent: Friday, 22 August 2008 8:32 a.m.
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: RE: The Importance of Terminology's Quality
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:36:39 +, sln wrote
left.
(Naturally Microsoft couldn't allow the standards long in use so today
this would be stated as CLSENTER. :)
Question: What does any of this have to do with:
The Importance of Terminology's Quality
when using Webster to define the words in the above line?
Been fun
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:36:39 +, sln wrote:
Whats os interresting about all this hullabaloo is that nobody has
coded
machine code here, and know's squat about it.
I'm not talking assembly language. Don't you know that there are
routines that program machine code? Yes, burned in, bitwise
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:22:05 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote:
Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:06:28 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote:
Martin Gregorie wrote:
Not necessarily. An awful lot of CPU cycles were used before
microcode was introduced. Mainframes and minis designed before
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:06:28 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote:
Martin Gregorie wrote:
Not necessarily. An awful lot of CPU cycles were used before microcode
was introduced. Mainframes and minis designed before about 1970 didn't
use or need it
No, most S/360s used microcode.
I never used an
Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:06:28 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote:
Martin Gregorie wrote:
Not necessarily. An awful lot of CPU cycles were used before microcode
was introduced. Mainframes and minis designed before about 1970 didn't
use or need it
No, most S/360s used microcode.
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:30:27 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:18:22 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) wrote:
Martin Gregorie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+---
| I was fascinated, though by the designs of early assemblers: I first
| learnt Elliott assembler,
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:11:48 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+---
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) wrote:
| In the LGP-30, they used hex addresses, sort of[1], but the opcodes
| (all 16 of them) had single-letter mnemonics chosen so that the
|
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:11:09 -0400, George Neuner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:30:27 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:18:22 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) wrote:
Martin Gregorie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+---
| I was fascinated, though
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:56:09 +, sln wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:11:48 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*IS* raw machine code, *NOT* assembler!!
[snip]
I don't see the distinction.
Just dissasemble it and find out.
There's a 1:1 relationship
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:23:57 + (UTC), Martin Gregorie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:56:09 +, sln wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:11:48 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*IS* raw machine code, *NOT* assembler!!
[snip]
I don't
Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:56:09 +, sln wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:11:48 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*IS* raw machine code, *NOT* assembler!!
[snip]
I don't see the distinction.
Just dissasemble it and find out.
There's
Paul Wallich wrote:
Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:56:09 +, sln wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:11:48 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*IS* raw machine code, *NOT* assembler!!
[snip]
I don't see the distinction.
Just dissasemble it and
Martin Gregorie wrote:
Not necessarily. An awful lot of CPU cycles were used before microcode
was introduced. Mainframes and minis designed before about 1970 didn't
use or need it
No, most S/360s used microcode.
--
John W. Kennedy
There are those who argue that everything breaks even in
Rob Warnock wrote:
What was the corresponding 1401 boot sequence?
The 1401 had a boot-from-tape-1 button on the console, and a
boot-from-card button on the card reader. You couldn't truly boot from a
disk; you loaded a little starter deck of about 20 cards on the card reader.
On the 1401,
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:36:39 +, sln wrote:
Whats os interresting about all this hullabaloo is that nobody has coded
machine code here, and know's squat about it.
I'm not talking assembly language. Don't you know that there are
routines that program machine code? Yes, burned in, bitwise
Arne Vajhøj [EMAIL PROTECTED] (AV) wrote:
AV Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
John W Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JWK Into the 60s, indeed, there were still machines being made
JWK that had no instruction comparable to the mainframe BASx/BALx
JWK family, or to Intel's CALL. You
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+---
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) wrote:
| In the LGP-30, they used hex addresses, sort of[1], but the opcodes
| (all 16 of them) had single-letter mnemonics chosen so that the
| low 4 bits of the character codes *were* the correct nibble for
| the opcode!
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:11:48 -0500, Rob Warnock wrote:
You're assuming that all machines *have* some sort of boot ROM. Before
the microprocessor days, that was certainly not always the case. The
boot ROM, or other methods of booting a machine without manually
entering at least a small amount
Piet van Oostrum wrote:
Arne Vajhøj [EMAIL PROTECTED] (AV) wrote:
AV Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
John W Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JWK Into the 60s, indeed, there were still machines being made
JWK that had no instruction comparable to the mainframe BASx/BALx
JWK family,
John W Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+---
| I said machine language and I meant it. I haven't touched a 1401 since
| 1966, and haven't dealt with a 1401 emulator since 1968, but I can
| /still/ write a self-booting program.
+---
Heh! I never dealt with a 1401 per se
Martin Gregorie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+---
| I was fascinated, though by the designs of early assemblers: I first
| learnt Elliott assembler, which required the op codes to be typed on
| octal but used symbolic labels and variable names. Meanwhile a colleague
| had started on a
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:18:22 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) wrote:
Martin Gregorie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+---
| I was fascinated, though by the designs of early assemblers: I first
| learnt Elliott assembler, which required the op codes to be typed on
| octal but used
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:30:27 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:18:22 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) wrote:
Martin Gregorie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+---
| I was fascinated, though by the designs of early assemblers: I first
| learnt Elliott assembler,
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 22:30:35 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote:
I said machine language and I meant it.
OK - I haven't touched that since typing ALTER commands into the console
of a 1903 running the UDAS executive or, even better, patching the
executive on the hand switches.
I was fascinated,
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:46:18 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote:
The 1401 was a decent enough processor for many industrial tasks -- at
that time -- but for general programming it was sheer horror.
But the easiest machine language /ever/.
True, very true.
M4
--
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:46:18 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote:
Martijn Lievaart wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:33:30 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote:
Actually, I was thinking of the 1401. But both the 1620 and the 1401
(without the optional Advanced Programming Feature) share the basic
omission of
Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:46:18 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote:
Martijn Lievaart wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:33:30 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote:
Actually, I was thinking of the 1401. But both the 1620 and the 1401
(without the optional Advanced Programming Feature) share
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:33:30 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote:
Actually, I was thinking of the 1401. But both the 1620 and the 1401
(without the optional Advanced Programming Feature) share the basic
omission of any instruction that could do call-and-return without
hard-coding an adcon with the
Martijn Lievaart wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:33:30 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote:
Actually, I was thinking of the 1401. But both the 1620 and the 1401
(without the optional Advanced Programming Feature) share the basic
omission of any instruction that could do call-and-return without
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:28:33 -0700,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Maas,
http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone
who said :
Note: On IBM 1620, instructions and forward-sweeping data records
were addressed by their *first* digit, whereas arithmetic fields
were addressed by
Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
John W Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JWK Into the 60s, indeed, there were still machines being made
JWK that had no instruction comparable to the mainframe BASx/BALx
JWK family, or to Intel's CALL. You had to do a subprogram call by
JWK first
John W Kennedy wrote:
Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
John W Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JWK Into the 60s, indeed, there were still machines being made
JWK that had no instruction comparable to the mainframe BASx/BALx
JWK family, or to Intel's CALL. You had to do a subprogram
John W Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JWK Into the 60s, indeed, there were still machines being made
JWK that had no instruction comparable to the mainframe BASx/BALx
JWK family, or to Intel's CALL. You had to do a subprogram call by
JWK first overwriting the last instruction of what you were
Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
John W Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JWK Into the 60s, indeed, there were still machines being made
JWK that had no instruction comparable to the mainframe BASx/BALx
JWK family, or to Intel's CALL. You had to do a subprogram call by
JWK first
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:42:15 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote:
David Combs wrote:
passing
*unnamed* functions as args (could Algol 60 also do something like that,
via something it maybe termed a thunk)
No, the thunks were necessary at the machine-language level to
/implement/ ALGOL 60, but
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:21 AM, Martin Gregorie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:42:15 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote:
David Combs wrote:
passing
*unnamed* functions as args (could Algol 60 also do something like that,
via something it maybe termed a thunk)
No, the thunks were
Martin Gregorie wrote:
Are you sure about that?
I used Algol 60 on an Elliott 503 and the ICL 1900 series back when it was
a current language. The term thunking did not appear in either compiler
manual nor in any Algol 60 language definition I've seen. A60 could pass
values by name or value
Martin Gregorie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+---
| John W Kennedy wrote:
| No, the thunks were necessary at the machine-language level to
| /implement/ ALGOL 60, but they could not be expressed /in/ ALGOL.
|
| Are you sure about that?
+---
I don't know if John is, but
Rob Warnock wrote:
Martin Gregorie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+---
| John W Kennedy wrote:
| No, the thunks were necessary at the machine-language level to
| /implement/ ALGOL 60, but they could not be expressed /in/ ALGOL.
|
| Are you sure about that?
+---
I don't
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:21:50 +0100, Martin Gregorie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The first time I ran across the term thunking was when Windows 3
introduced the Win32S shim and hence the need to switch addressing between
16 bit and 32 bit modes across call interfaces. That was called thunking
by
On 2008-07-22, Steve Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:21:50 +0100, Martin Gregorie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The first time I ran across the term thunking was when Windows 3
introduced the Win32S shim and hence the need to switch addressing between
16 bit and 32 bit modes
Martin Gregorie wrote:
I used Algol 60 on an Elliott 503 and the ICL 1900 series back when it was
a current language. The term thunking did not appear in either compiler
manual nor in any Algol 60 language definition I've seen.
It doesn't have to; Algol 60 thunks are not part of the language.
Rob Warnock wrote:
Thunks were something used by Algol 60
*compiler writers* in the code generated by their compilers to
implement the semantics of Algol 60 call-by-name, but were not
visible to users at all [except that they allowed call-by-name
to work right].
...unless you were a system
... the thunks were necessary at the machine-language level to
/implement/ ALGOL 60, but they could not be expressed /in/ ALGOL.
Ah, thanks for the clarification. Is that info in the appropriate
WikiPedia page? If not, maybe you would edit it in?
From: John W Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It
Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
... the thunks were necessary at the machine-language level to
/implement/ ALGOL 60, but they could not be expressed /in/ ALGOL.
Ah, thanks for the clarification. Is that info in the appropriate
WikiPedia page? If not, maybe you would edit it in?
Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
Why this response is so belated:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.misc/msg/cea714440e591dd2
= news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:42:15 -0400
From: John W Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
... the thunks were necessary at the
Why this response is so belated:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.misc/msg/cea714440e591dd2
= news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:37:48 +0100
From: Jon Harrop [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We all know that Java, Perl, Python and Lisp suck.
Well at least you're three-quarters correct
Why this response is so belated:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.misc/msg/cea714440e591dd2
= news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 06:17:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. Please don't look at my profile (at google groups), thanks!
Please don't look at the orange and
Why this response is so belated:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.misc/msg/cea714440e591dd2
= news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:42:15 -0400
From: John W Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
... the thunks were necessary at the machine-language level to
/implement/ ALGOL 60, but they
Robert Maas wrote:
/\
| ,-.-. | |
| | | |, .,---.,---.,---.,---.,---.,---.,---|,---. |
| | | || |`---.| || ||
David Combs wrote:
passing
*unnamed* functions as args (could Algol 60 also do something like that,
via something it maybe termed a thunk)
No, the thunks were necessary at the machine-language level to
/implement/ ALGOL 60, but they could not be expressed /in/ ALGOL.
--
John W. Kennedy
The
Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Combs)
Lisp is *so* early a language (1960?), preceeded mainly only by
Fortran (1957?)?, and for sure the far-and-away the first as a
platform for *so many* concepts of computer-science, eg lexical vs
dynamic (special)
On 5 Giu, 12:37, Jon Harrop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
P.S. Please don't look at my profile (at google groups), thanks!
Jon Harrop
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Combs)
Lisp is *so* early a language (1960?), preceeded mainly only by
Fortran (1957?)?, and for sure the far-and-away the first as a
platform for *so many* concepts of computer-science, eg lexical vs
dynamic (special) variables, passing *unnamed* functions as
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
szr wrote:
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
szr wrote:
Peter Duniho wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 22:40:03 -0700, szr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
Stephan Bour wrote:
Lew wrote:
} John Thingstad wrote:
} Perl is solidly based in the UNIX world on awk, sed, }
bash and
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
szr wrote:
Peter Duniho wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 22:40:03 -0700, szr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
Stephan Bour wrote:
Lew wrote:
} John Thingstad wrote:
} Perl is solidly based in the UNIX world on awk, sed, } bash
and C. I don't like the style, but
On Sat, 31 May 2008 23:27:35 -0700, szr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
But the subthread Lew commente don was about Perl and Unix. That is
clearly off topic.
I agree with and understand what you are saying in general, but still,
isn't it possible that were are people in the java group (and
Peter Duniho wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2008 23:27:35 -0700, szr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
But the subthread Lew commente don was about Perl and Unix. That is
clearly off topic.
I agree with and understand what you are saying in general, but
still, isn't it possible that were are people in
szr wrote:
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
szr wrote:
Peter Duniho wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 22:40:03 -0700, szr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
Stephan Bour wrote:
Lew wrote:
} John Thingstad wrote:
} Perl is solidly based in the UNIX world on awk, sed, } bash
and C. I don't like the
On Fri, 30 May 2008 22:40:03 -0700, szr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
Stephan Bour wrote:
Lew wrote:
} John Thingstad wrote:
} Perl is solidly based in the UNIX world on awk, sed, bash and C.
} I don't like the style, but many do.
}
} Please exclude the Java newsgroups from
Peter Duniho wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 22:40:03 -0700, szr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
Stephan Bour wrote:
Lew wrote:
} John Thingstad wrote:
} Perl is solidly based in the UNIX world on awk, sed, } bash
and C. I don't like the style, but many do.
}
} Please exclude
szr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would rather have the OP comment about that, as he started the thread.
The OP is a very well-known troll who has the habit of spitting out a
borderline OT article to a bunch of loosly related NGs ever so often and
then sits back and enjoys the complaints and
Jürgen Exner wrote:
szr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would rather have the OP comment about that, as he started the
thread.
The OP is a very well-known troll who has the habit of spitting out a
borderline OT article to a bunch of loosly related NGs ever so often
and then sits back and enjoys
szr wrote:
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
Stephan Bour wrote:
Lew wrote:
} John Thingstad wrote:
} Perl is solidly based in the UNIX world on awk, sed, bash and C.
} I don't like the style, but many do.
}
} Please exclude the Java newsgroups from this discussion.
Did it ever occur to you that you don't
szr wrote:
Peter Duniho wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 22:40:03 -0700, szr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
Stephan Bour wrote:
Lew wrote:
} John Thingstad wrote:
} Perl is solidly based in the UNIX world on awk, sed, } bash
and C. I don't like the style, but many do.
}
} Please
På Fri, 30 May 2008 02:56:37 +0200, skrev David Combs [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the importance of naming of functions.
Lisp is *so* early a language (1960?),
John Thingstad wrote:
Perl is solidly based in the UNIX world on awk, sed, bash and C.
I don't like the style, but many do.
Please exclude the Java newsgroups from this discussion.
--
Lew
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Lew wrote:
John Thingstad wrote:
Perl is solidly based in the UNIX world on awk, sed, bash and C.
I don't like the style, but many do.
Please exclude the Java newsgroups from this discussion.
Why? Do you speak for everyone in that, this, or other groups?
--
G.Etly
--
Gordon Etly wrote:
Lew wrote:
John Thingstad wrote:
Perl is solidly based in the UNIX world on awk, sed, bash and C.
I don't like the style, but many do.
Please exclude the Java newsgroups from this discussion.
Why? Do you speak for everyone in that, this, or other groups?
I don't
Lew wrote:
} John Thingstad wrote:
} Perl is solidly based in the UNIX world on awk, sed, bash and C.
} I don't like the style, but many do.
}
} Please exclude the Java newsgroups from this discussion.
Did it ever occur to you that you don't speak for entire news groups?
Stephan.
--
Stephan Bour wrote:
Lew wrote:
} John Thingstad wrote:
} Perl is solidly based in the UNIX world on awk, sed, bash and C.
} I don't like the style, but many do.
}
} Please exclude the Java newsgroups from this discussion.
Did it ever occur to you that you don't speak for entire news groups?
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
Stephan Bour wrote:
Lew wrote:
} John Thingstad wrote:
} Perl is solidly based in the UNIX world on awk, sed, bash and C.
} I don't like the style, but many do.
}
} Please exclude the Java newsgroups from this discussion.
Did it ever occur to you that you don't speak
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Waylen Gumbal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sherman Pendley wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
I don't think Xah is trolling here (contrary to his/her habit)
but posing an interesting matter of
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the importance of naming of functions.
Lisp is *so* early a language (1960?), preceeded mainly only by Fortran
(1957?)?,
and for sure the far-and-away the
(This one is also cross-posted, to apologize to one and all
about my just-prior followup.)
I stupidly didn't remember that whatever followup I made
would also get crossposted until *after* I had kneejerked
hit s (send) before I noticed the warning (Pnews?) on
just how many groups it would be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on Wed, 7 May 2008 16:13:36
-0700 (PDT):
...
Let me give a few example.
• “lambda”, widely used as a keyword in functional languages, is named
just “Function” in Mathematica. The “lambda” happend to be called so
in the field of symbolic logic, is
George Neuner wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2008 22:38:44 -0700, Waylen Gumbal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Not everyone follows language-neutral groups (such as
comp,programming as you pointed out), so you actually reach more
people by cross posting. This is what I don't understand - everyone
Waylen Gumbal wrote:
George Neuner wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2008 22:38:44 -0700, Waylen Gumbal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Not everyone follows language-neutral groups (such as
comp,programming as you pointed out), so you actually reach more
people by cross posting. This is what I don't
Lew [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You guys are off topic. None of the million groups to which this
message was posted are about netiquette.
Netiquette has come up at one point or another in pretty much every
group I've ever read. It's pretty much a universal meta-topic.
sherm--
--
My blog:
Sherman Pendley wrote:
Lew [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You guys are off topic. None of the million groups to which this
message was posted are about netiquette.
Netiquette has come up at one point or another in pretty much every
group I've ever read. It's pretty much a universal meta-topic.
On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:45:26 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) wrote:
George Neuner gneuner2/@/comcast.net wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2008 16:13:36 -0700 (PDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Functions [in Mathematica] that takes elements out of list
are variously named First,
Lew wrote:
Waylen Gumbal wrote:
Not everyone follows language-neutral groups (such as
comp,programming as you pointed out), so you actually reach more
people by cross posting. This is what I don't understand - everyone
seems to assume that by cross posting, one intends on start a
flamefest,
Jürgen Exner wrote:
Waylen Gumbal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sherman Pendley wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
Not everyone follows language-neutral groups (such as
comp,programming as you pointed out), so you
Waylen Gumbal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so why not just skip the thread or toss the OP in your
killfile so you don't see his postings.
Done years ago.
If others want to discuss his
topics, who are you or I to tell them not to?
They are very welcome to do so in an appropriate NG for those
On Thu, 8 May 2008 22:38:44 -0700, Waylen Gumbal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Sherman Pendley wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
I don't think Xah is trolling here (contrary to his/her habit)
but posing an interesting matter
George Neuner gneuner2/@/comcast.net wrote:
+---
| Common Lisp doesn't have filter.
+---
Of course it does! It just spells it REMOVE-IF-NOT!! ;-} ;-}
(remove-if-not #'oddp (iota 10))
(1 3 5 7 9)
(remove-if-not (lambda (x) ( x 4)) (iota 10))
(5 6 7 8
George Neuner gneuner2/@/comcast.net wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2008 16:13:36 -0700 (PDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+---+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT |:.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
På Thu, 08 May 2008 04:14:35 +0200, skrev Kyle McGivney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
• Module, Block, in Mathematica is in lisp's various “let*”. The
lisp's keywords “let”, is based on the English word “let”. That word
is one of the English word with multitudes of meanings. If you look up
its
| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
I don't think Xah is trolling here (contrary to his/her habit)
but posing an interesting matter of discussion.
Don't know to which point it fits, but I would like to do some rather
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the importance of naming of functions.
I agree, that's a useful consideration in the design of any system
based on keywords, such as names of functions or operators.
(I'm not using keyword in the sense of a symbol in the KEYWORD package.)
the naming
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| PLEASE DO NOT |:.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
I don't think Xah is trolling here (contrary to his/her habit)
but posing an interesting matter of discussion.
Interesting is in the eye of the beholder.
Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
I have my own gripe against regular expressions (regex for short).
I hate the extremely terse format, with horrible concoctions of
escape and anti-escape magic characters, to fit within Unix's
255-character limit on command lines, compared to a nicely
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
