On Tuesday, 9 July 2013 at 10:38:11 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
... nor does it mean that personhood is not a very useful and
meaningful construct.
Even worse, now you use "personhood" as a replacement for
self-awareness! :) It is a very dangerous mistake to use common
words when speaking about consc
On Monday, 8 July 2013 at 21:46:24 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Just because we have difficulty defining something is not a
reason to dismiss it as irrelevant or non-existent.
Sure, but there is an important difference between "dismissing"
and "dismissing as a relevant scientific term to discuss"
On Monday, 8 July 2013 at 21:46:24 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Just because we have difficulty defining something is not a
reason to dismiss it as irrelevant or non-existent.
I'm sure you're self-aware, as I'm sure Siri and Watson are not.
It is proven that at least 70% of what we perceive as
On Monday, 8 July 2013 at 18:37:30 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/8/2013 6:31 AM, Dicebot wrote:
Well, second one is not really a scientific problem, it is a
philosophical one.
Self-awareness is a very vague term with a lot of space for
personal
interpretation. I don't even think it is worth s
On Tuesday, 9 July 2013 at 06:07:12 UTC, Tommi wrote:
Consciousness would be kind of your ability to predict what
kind of sensory data would be likely to be produced if you sent
a certain set of signals to your muscles.
...and the better you are at predicting those very-near-future
sensory si
On Monday, 8 July 2013 at 21:46:24 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I'm sure you're self-aware, as I'm sure Siri and Watson are not.
But there is no way for you to prove to me that you are
self-aware. It could be that you are simply programmed to appear
to be self-aware; think of an infinite loop c
Walter Bright:
Except that we have no idea how brains actually work.
Are fruit flies self-aware? Probably not. Are dogs? Definitely.
So at what point between fruit flies and dogs does
self-awareness start?
We have no idea. None at all.
There are many things that are not yet known in neuro
On 7/8/2013 11:54 AM, Dicebot wrote:
On Monday, 8 July 2013 at 18:37:30 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
If you consider that our brains evolved, and self-awareness was a result of
evolution, then self-awareness presumably offers some sort of survival benefit.
Following that line of reasoning, self-aw
On Monday, 8 July 2013 at 18:37:30 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
If you consider that our brains evolved, and self-awareness was
a result of evolution, then self-awareness presumably offers
some sort of survival benefit.
Following that line of reasoning, self-awareness becomes a real
phenomenon w
On 7/8/2013 6:05 AM, John Colvin wrote:
Problem A) Understanding how the human brain processes certain types of
information.
Problem B) Making a decision about what constitutes self-awareness and where to
draw the line.
Those are not equivalent problems in the slightest.
I'm not so sure at al
On 7/8/2013 6:31 AM, Dicebot wrote:
Well, second one is not really a scientific problem, it is a philosophical one.
Self-awareness is a very vague term with a lot of space for personal
interpretation. I don't even think it is worth speaking about.
If you consider that our brains evolved, and se
On Monday, 8 July 2013 at 13:34:44 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Monday, 8 July 2013 at 13:31:41 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
...
And, yeah, the very point I wanted to mention - while concept
of self-awareness is useless on its own, it is quite
interesting in scope of first problem - "how does a human brain
On Monday, 8 July 2013 at 14:28:33 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
I love you guys. A thread about the merits of adding path append
operators to strings turns into a discussion about
self-awareness.
Brilliant. ;-)
I don't care about path append operators but tricks of human
consciousness is a an impo
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 03:34:43PM +0200, Dicebot wrote:
> On Monday, 8 July 2013 at 13:31:41 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> >...
>
> And, yeah, the very point I wanted to mention - while concept of
> self-awareness is useless on its own, it is quite interesting in
> scope of first problem - "how does a hu
On Monday, 8 July 2013 at 13:05:55 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
..
Problem A) Understanding how the human brain processes certain
types of information.
Problem B) Making a decision about what constitutes
self-awareness and where to draw the line.
Those are not equivalent problems in the slight
On Monday, 8 July 2013 at 13:31:41 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
...
And, yeah, the very point I wanted to mention - while concept of
self-awareness is useless on its own, it is quite interesting in
scope of first problem - "how does a human brain reason about
someones self-awareness" :)
On Monday, 8 July 2013 at 12:04:14 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/8/2013 2:02 AM, Tommi wrote:
I don't buy that. Humans don't process data like computers do.
Humans don't and _can't_ process data like computers do, but
computers _can_
process data like humans do.
Human brain does it's compu
On Wednesday, 3 July 2013 at 12:24:33 UTC, Wyatt wrote:
This is something I was discussing with a friend recently, and
we agreed it would be cool if there were set of operators with
no definition until overloaded, so you could use e.g. (.) for
dot product, (*) for cross product, (+) (or maybe [
On Monday, 8 July 2013 at 12:04:14 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/8/2013 2:02 AM, Tommi wrote:
I don't buy that. Humans don't process data like computers do.
Humans don't and _can't_ process data like computers do, but
computers _can_
process data like humans do.
Human brain does it's compu
On Monday, 8 July 2013 at 12:04:14 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Except that we have no idea how brains actually work.
Are fruit flies self-aware? Probably not. Are dogs? Definitely.
So at what point between fruit flies and dogs does
self-awareness start?
We have no idea. None at all.
+1
Unde
On 7/8/2013 2:02 AM, Tommi wrote:
I don't buy that. Humans don't process data like computers do.
Humans don't and _can't_ process data like computers do, but computers _can_
process data like humans do.
Human brain does it's computation in a highly parallel manner, but signals run
much slower
On Monday, 8 July 2013 at 10:48:05 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
For me, the most interesting question in all of this is "What
is intelligence?". While that might seem the preserve of
philosophers, I believe that computers have the ability to (and
already do) demonstrate new and diverse types of inte
On Monday, 8 July 2013 at 09:02:44 UTC, Tommi wrote:
On Sunday, 7 July 2013 at 20:35:49 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/7/2013 8:38 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
All Siri does is recognize a set of stock patterns, just
like Eliza. Step out of that, even slightly, and it reverts
to a default, a
On Sunday, 7 July 2013 at 20:35:49 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/7/2013 8:38 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
All Siri does is recognize a set of stock patterns, just like
Eliza. Step out of that, even slightly, and it reverts to a
default, again, just like Eliza.
Of course, Siri had a much la
On 7/7/2013 7:42 PM, Timothee Cour wrote:
Can't speak for Siri, but the deep learning architecture used in google now has
little to do with Eliza. Nor is the recognition accuracy. Try it if you haven't!
Can you give some examples demonstrating this?
On 7/7/13 6:11 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/7/2013 4:03 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Similarly, it would be an ignorant thing to say that Siri is just a
larger
Eliza. There is a world of difference between Eliza's and Siri's
approaches. In
fact the difference is even larger than between 1970s
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 7/7/2013 4:03 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
>> Similarly, it would be an ignorant thing to say that Siri is just a larger
>> Eliza. There is a world of difference between Eliza's and Siri's
>> approaches. In
>> fact the difference is eve
On 7/7/2013 4:03 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Similarly, it would be an ignorant thing to say that Siri is just a larger
Eliza. There is a world of difference between Eliza's and Siri's approaches. In
fact the difference is even larger than between 1970s compilers and today's
ones.
I don't kn
On Sun, Jul 07, 2013 at 04:03:39PM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 7/7/13 2:44 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> >>This started with you claiming that Siri is just Eliza with more
> >>memory. That's
> >>inaccurate to say the least.
> >
> >I argue it is dead on. I don't see a fundamental difference.
On 7/7/13 2:44 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
This started with you claiming that Siri is just Eliza with more
memory. That's
inaccurate to say the least.
I argue it is dead on. I don't see a fundamental difference.
Consider someone at a 1970s level of compiler technology coming to you
and telling
On 7/7/2013 2:05 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Sunday, 7 July 2013 at 10:07:51 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Ask Watson what its favorite color is.
Ask /me/ what my favorite color is. I always hate questions like that because,
and this might sound silly, but it bothers me because if I pick one, I th
On 7/7/2013 2:11 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 7/7/13 1:35 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
A mailman can (will) also do things like pretend to know, make up a
plausible answer, ask clarifying questions, figure it out, etc.
Siri can also reply by doing a google search and reading the result.
Rig
On 7/7/13 1:35 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
A mailman can (will) also do things like pretend to know, make up a
plausible answer, ask clarifying questions, figure it out, etc.
Siri can also reply by doing a google search and reading the result.
Computers don't, for example, figure it out. They do
On Sunday, 7 July 2013 at 10:07:51 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Ask Watson what its favorite color is.
Ask /me/ what my favorite color is. I always hate questions like
that because, and this might sound silly, but it bothers me
because if I pick one, I think the others will feel left out, and
I
On Sunday, July 07, 2013 13:38:33 Walter Bright wrote:
> On 7/7/2013 5:41 AM, John Colvin wrote:
> > On Sunday, 7 July 2013 at 10:07:51 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> >> Ask Watson what its favorite color is.
> >>
> >> Oh well.
> >
> > That's asking for an awful lot more than good natural language p
On Sunday, 7 July 2013 at 20:38:31 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/7/2013 5:41 AM, John Colvin wrote:
On Sunday, 7 July 2013 at 10:07:51 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Ask Watson what its favorite color is.
Oh well.
That's asking for an awful lot more than good natural language
processing.
Is i
On 7/7/2013 5:41 AM, John Colvin wrote:
On Sunday, 7 July 2013 at 10:07:51 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Ask Watson what its favorite color is.
Oh well.
That's asking for an awful lot more than good natural language processing.
Is it? Yes, that's a serious question. I don't presume that human l
On 7/7/2013 8:38 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
All Siri does is recognize a set of stock patterns, just like Eliza.
Step out of that, even slightly, and it reverts to a default, again,
just like Eliza.
Of course, Siri had a much larger set of patterns it recognized, but
with a bit of experiment
On 7/7/13 3:07 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/7/2013 1:30 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 7/7/13 1:26 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/6/2013 11:11 PM, TommiT wrote:
I can see machine translation that is based on statistical
correlation with a
sufficiently large corpus of human translations, but
On Sunday, 7 July 2013 at 10:07:51 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/7/2013 2:16 AM, John Colvin wrote:
On Sunday, 7 July 2013 at 08:26:03 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/6/2013 11:11 PM, TommiT wrote:
I can see machine translation that is based on statistical
correlation with a
sufficiently large
On Sunday, 7 July 2013 at 10:07:51 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/7/2013 2:16 AM, John Colvin wrote:
One word: Watson.
Ask Watson what its favorite color is.
Oh well.
That would require self-awareness. But self-awareness is not a
requirement of understanding natural language as long as th
On 7/7/2013 1:30 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 7/7/13 1:26 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/6/2013 11:11 PM, TommiT wrote:
I can see machine translation that is based on statistical
correlation with a
sufficiently large corpus of human translations, but I don't see much
hope for
actual underst
On 7/7/2013 2:16 AM, John Colvin wrote:
On Sunday, 7 July 2013 at 08:26:03 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/6/2013 11:11 PM, TommiT wrote:
I can see machine translation that is based on statistical correlation with a
sufficiently large corpus of human translations, but I don't see much hope for
a
On Sunday, 7 July 2013 at 08:26:03 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/6/2013 11:11 PM, TommiT wrote:
I can see machine translation that is based on statistical
correlation with a
sufficiently large corpus of human translations, but I don't
see much hope for
actual understanding of non-literal speec
On 7/7/13 1:26 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/6/2013 11:11 PM, TommiT wrote:
I can see machine translation that is based on statistical
correlation with a
sufficiently large corpus of human translations, but I don't see much
hope for
actual understanding of non-literal speech in the foreseeable f
On 7/6/2013 11:11 PM, TommiT wrote:
I can see machine translation that is based on statistical correlation with a
sufficiently large corpus of human translations, but I don't see much hope for
actual understanding of non-literal speech in the foreseeable future, and I'm
actually rather glad of th
On Saturday, 6 July 2013 at 22:25:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/5/2013 3:48 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
For example, consider the sentence "he's such an office
Romeo!". It's
relatively easy to parse -- no convoluted nested subordinate
clauses or
anything tricky like that. But it's extremely diffi
On 7/5/2013 3:48 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
For example, consider the sentence "he's such an office Romeo!". It's
relatively easy to parse -- no convoluted nested subordinate clauses or
anything tricky like that. But it's extremely difficult for a machine to
*interpret*, because to fully understand wh
On 7/5/2013 1:39 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
And I'm certain that I've seen the unary usage of ~ before. I just couldn't
think of it when I posted today. I really need more sleep...
Or more coffee!
On Friday, 5 July 2013 at 22:30:20 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
LOL. Natural language is even more ambiguous than HTML, and we
know how bad
that can get. Every person is emitting and receiving slightly
different
versions of whatever natural language they're communicated in,
and it's that
much w
On Friday, 5 July 2013 at 22:49:40 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
How to even remotely model such a thought process in a machine
is an
extremely hard problem indeed!
I would posit (being a machine learning guy myself to some
extent, although not natural language) that it's only an
interesting proble
On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 03:30:07PM -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Friday, July 05, 2013 22:46:59 Namespace wrote:
> > On Friday, 5 July 2013 at 20:34:26 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> > > On 07/05/2013 10:09 PM, Namespace wrote:
> > >>> Unary ~ is bitwise not in Java and D, and he is referring to
>
On Friday, July 05, 2013 22:46:59 Namespace wrote:
> On Friday, 5 July 2013 at 20:34:26 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> > On 07/05/2013 10:09 PM, Namespace wrote:
> >>> Unary ~ is bitwise not in Java and D, and he is referring to
> >>> binary
> >>> usage.
> >>>
> >>> [...] use ~ for _any_ purpose.
> >>
On Friday, 5 July 2013 at 18:18:14 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
It doesn't necessarily have to be ~, as long as it's something
other
than + (or any other numerical binary operator). Perl uses '.',
but in
D's case, that would be a bad idea, since you'd have ambiguity
in:
Perl is my day job and I've
On Friday, 5 July 2013 at 20:34:26 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 07/05/2013 10:09 PM, Namespace wrote:
Unary ~ is bitwise not in Java and D, and he is referring to
binary
usage.
[...] use ~ for _any_ purpose.
I'd expected that *any* really means *any* and do not refer to
binary.
Yes. Neither
On Friday, July 05, 2013 22:34:57 Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 07/05/2013 10:34 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> > On 07/05/2013 10:09 PM, Namespace wrote:
> >>> Unary ~ is bitwise not in Java and D, and he is referring to binary
> >>> usage.
> >>>
> >>> [...] use ~ for _any_ purpose.
> >>
> >> I'd expected tha
On 07/05/2013 10:34 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 07/05/2013 10:09 PM, Namespace wrote:
Unary ~ is bitwise not in Java and D, and he is referring to binary
usage.
[...] use ~ for _any_ purpose.
I'd expected that *any* really means *any* and do not refer to binary.
Yes. Neither do 'use', 'for' a
On 07/05/2013 10:09 PM, Namespace wrote:
Unary ~ is bitwise not in Java and D, and he is referring to binary
usage.
[...] use ~ for _any_ purpose.
I'd expected that *any* really means *any* and do not refer to binary.
Yes. Neither do 'use', 'for' and 'purpose'. Establishing that it is
like
On Friday, July 05, 2013 22:09:53 Namespace wrote:
> > Unary ~ is bitwise not in Java and D, and he is referring to
> > binary usage.
> >
> > [...] use ~ for _any_ purpose.
>
> I'd expected that *any* really means *any* and do not refer to
> binary.
I did mean any, not just binary. I thought tha
Unary ~ is bitwise not in Java and D, and he is referring to
binary usage.
[...] use ~ for _any_ purpose.
I'd expected that *any* really means *any* and do not refer to
binary.
On 07/05/2013 09:43 PM, Namespace wrote:
Most languages I've used use + for concatenating strings, so it was
definitely
surprising to me that D didn't. I have no problem with the fact that
it has a
specific operator for concatenation (and there are some good reasons
for it),
but + seems to be pre
Most languages I've used use + for concatenating strings, so it
was definitely
surprising to me that D didn't. I have no problem with the fact
that it has a
specific operator for concatenation (and there are some good
reasons for it),
but + seems to be pretty standard across languages from what
On Friday, July 05, 2013 16:59:38 TommiT wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 23:28:41 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 21:48:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> >> On 7/2/2013 1:47 PM, TommiT wrote:
> >>> Division operator for strings doesn't make any sense,
> >>
> >> That's why
On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 10:44:43AM -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 7/5/2013 9:17 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >Python uses +.
>
> There's much historical precedence for + meaning concatenation, and
> much historical experience with the resulting ambiguity.
Which leads to some nasty situations in Java
On Friday, 5 July 2013 at 14:59:39 UTC, TommiT wrote:
It's rather C++'s std::string which overloads the meaning of +
to mean "concatenation". I wonder if some other programming
language has assigned some other symbol (than ~) to mean
"concatenation". I guess math uses || for it.
|| is used fo
On 7/5/2013 9:17 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Python uses +.
There's much historical precedence for + meaning concatenation, and much
historical experience with the resulting ambiguity. The famous example is:
"123" + 4
? In D, the canonical problem is:
int[] array;
array + 4
Does th
On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 05:04:46PM +0200, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> Am 05.07.2013 16:59, schrieb TommiT:
> >On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 23:28:41 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
> >>On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 21:48:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> >>>On 7/2/2013 1:47 PM, TommiT wrote:
> Division operator for
On Friday, 5 July 2013 at 15:04:44 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
Am 05.07.2013 16:59, schrieb TommiT:
On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 23:28:41 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 21:48:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/2/2013 1:47 PM, TommiT wrote:
Division operator for strings doesn't
Am 05.07.2013 16:59, schrieb TommiT:
On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 23:28:41 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 21:48:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/2/2013 1:47 PM, TommiT wrote:
Division operator for strings doesn't make any sense,
That's why overloading / to do something c
On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 23:28:41 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 21:48:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/2/2013 1:47 PM, TommiT wrote:
Division operator for strings doesn't make any sense,
That's why overloading / to do something completely unrelated
to division is an
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 11:48:21PM +0200, w0rp wrote:
> I am strongly against this kind of thing. Operator overloading is a
> very useful tool for providing obvious semantics to types. User
> defined data structures, like a matrix type, can be treated like
> first class citizens, just like built in
I am strongly against this kind of thing. Operator overloading is
a very useful tool for providing obvious semantics to types. User
defined data structures, like a matrix type, can be treated like
first class citizens, just like built in primitive types, by
having overloads for relevant operato
On Wednesday, 3 July 2013 at 12:45:53 UTC, TommiT wrote:
On Wednesday, 3 July 2013 at 12:24:33 UTC, Wyatt wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 22:28:24 UTC, TommiT wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 21:48:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/2/2013 1:47 PM, TommiT wrote:
Division operator for string
On Wednesday, 3 July 2013 at 14:03:20 UTC, TommiT wrote:
On Wednesday, 3 July 2013 at 13:24:41 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
Technically, + is already 1D matrix addition [..]
Not 1D matrix, but rather, 1x1 matrix.
in conjunction with [] you have 1D addition. e.g.
int[10] a = 1;
On Wednesday, 3 July 2013 at 14:03:20 UTC, TommiT wrote:
On Wednesday, 3 July 2013 at 13:24:41 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
Technically, + is already 1D matrix addition [..]
Not 1D matrix, but rather, 1x1 matrix.
Sorry, didn't realize you were talking about:
sum[] = values[] + values[];
On Wednesday, 3 July 2013 at 13:24:41 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
Technically, + is already 1D matrix addition [..]
Not 1D matrix, but rather, 1x1 matrix.
On Wednesday, 3 July 2013 at 12:45:53 UTC, TommiT wrote:
On Wednesday, 3 July 2013 at 12:24:33 UTC, Wyatt wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 22:28:24 UTC, TommiT wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 21:48:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/2/2013 1:47 PM, TommiT wrote:
Division operator for string
On Wednesday, 3 July 2013 at 12:45:53 UTC, TommiT wrote:
I don't see why we couldn't add the actual unicode ∙ and ×
characters to the language, make them operators and give them
the fixed meaning of dot product and cross product respectively.
Wouldn't + be the correct operator to use for matri
On Wednesday, 3 July 2013 at 12:24:33 UTC, Wyatt wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 22:28:24 UTC, TommiT wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 21:48:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/2/2013 1:47 PM, TommiT wrote:
Division operator for strings doesn't make any sense,
That's why overloading / to do
On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 22:28:24 UTC, TommiT wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 21:48:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/2/2013 1:47 PM, TommiT wrote:
Division operator for strings doesn't make any sense,
That's why overloading / to do something completely unrelated
to division is anti-ethi
On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 23:08:37 UTC, Artur Skawina wrote:
On 07/02/13 22:47, TommiT wrote:
Division operator for strings doesn't make any sense, and I
doubt there will ever be some other meaning for '/' that would
make more sense than "a directory separator" for strings in
the context of
On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 21:48:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/2/2013 1:47 PM, TommiT wrote:
Division operator for strings doesn't make any sense,
That's why overloading / to do something completely unrelated
to division is anti-ethical to writing understandable code.
s/division/"The co
On 7/2/2013 4:28 PM, monarch_dodra wrote:
The classic example of this is the overloading of << and >> for stream
operations in C++.
Or overloading ~ to mean "concat" ?
Binary ~ has no other meaning, so it is not "overloading" it to mean something
else.
On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 22:56:00 UTC, TommiT wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 22:28:24 UTC, TommiT wrote:
I've never thought of it like that. [..]
Boost Filesystem overloads the meaning of / to mean "append to
path". Boost Exception overloads << to mean "add this info to
this exception"
On 07/02/13 22:47, TommiT wrote:
> Division operator for strings doesn't make any sense, and I doubt there will
> ever be some other meaning for '/' that would make more sense than "a
> directory separator" for strings in the context of programming.
Umm,
> $ /usr/bin/pike
> Pike v7.8 release 5
On Wednesday, July 03, 2013 00:55:59 TommiT wrote:
> So no wonder I was under the impression that we're allowed to
> overload the meaning of operators.
Well, of course, you _can_ overload them to do different stuff. It's trivial to
make most overloaded operators do something completely different
On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 22:28:24 UTC, TommiT wrote:
I've never thought of it like that. [..]
Boost Filesystem overloads the meaning of / to mean "append to
path". Boost Exception overloads << to mean "add this info to
this exception". Boost Serialization overloads << and >> to mean
seria
On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 21:48:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/2/2013 1:47 PM, TommiT wrote:
Division operator for strings doesn't make any sense,
That's why overloading / to do something completely unrelated
to division is anti-ethical to writing understandable code. The
classic example
On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 21:48:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/2/2013 1:47 PM, TommiT wrote:
Division operator for strings doesn't make any sense,
That's why overloading / to do something completely unrelated
to division is anti-ethical to writing understandable code. The
classic example
On 7/2/2013 1:47 PM, TommiT wrote:
Division operator for strings doesn't make any sense,
That's why overloading / to do something completely unrelated to division is
anti-ethical to writing understandable code. The classic example of this is the
overloading of << and >> for stream operations
On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 20:31:14 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 19:46:34 UTC, TommiT wrote:
How would you feel about adding the '/' binary operator and
the '/=' assignment operator for strings, wstrings and
dstrings? The operators would behave the same way as they do
w
On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 19:46:34 UTC, TommiT wrote:
How would you feel about adding the '/' binary operator and the
'/=' assignment operator for strings, wstrings and dstrings?
The operators would behave the same way as they do with
boost::filesystem::path objects:
There is a *massive* dif
On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 19:56:20 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Tuesday, July 02, 2013 21:46:26 TommiT wrote:
How would you feel about adding the '/' binary operator and the
'/=' assignment operator for strings, wstrings and dstrings?
The
operators would behave the same way as they do with
On Tuesday, July 02, 2013 21:46:26 TommiT wrote:
> How would you feel about adding the '/' binary operator and the
> '/=' assignment operator for strings, wstrings and dstrings? The
> operators would behave the same way as they do with
> boost::filesystem::path objects:
>
> http://www.boost.org/do
On 2013-07-02, 21:46, TommiT wrote:
How would you feel about adding the '/' binary operator and the '/='
assignment operator for strings, wstrings and dstrings? The operators
would behave the same way as they do with boost::filesystem::path
objects:
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_54_0/li
95 matches
Mail list logo
