On Jul 20, 11:08 pm, "Dan Upton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Mensanator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jul 20, 10:05�pm, Stephen Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Carry bits? Who worries about carry bits when you have > >> > unlimited precision arithmetic? You want cool? > >> > THIS is cool: > > >> > j = ((invert(xyz[1]-xyz[0],xyz[1]**(k-1))*(xyz[1]**(k-1)-prev_gen[2])) > >> > % xyz[1]**(k-1))/xyz[1]**(k-2) > > >> You call that "cool." I call it "unreadable." > > > Ok, but not in the sense that something like > > Scheme is unreadable as this is nothing but > > algebra (albeit complicaed). > > Scheme doesn't *have* to be unreadable... any more unreadable than any > other language when poorly documented/formatted, anyway.
When I needed to whip up a variation on Ulam's Spiral recently, I went and got the Scheme version I wrote 4 years ago when I briefly toyed with Scheme and thought I'd just translate the plotting part to Python. Couldn't make any sense of it and ended up doing the Python version with Turtle Graphics. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
