10:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features
I can assure you that the SACC would like nothing more than to avoid
placing unnecessary burdens on the user/programmer. The issue here is
whether relaxing limits like the restriction on string lengths would break
existing applications
]
To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features
I can assure you that the SACC would like nothing more than to avoid
placing unnecessary burdens on the user/programmer. The issue here
is
whether relaxing limits like
(EDS) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 4:45 PM
Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features
Maybe it's a case of reductio ad absurdum but if I have a long
arithmetic list like:
5+9+33+87-92+28+77*4-15-61+88+342
why in the world would
adopted a
Western perspective.
- Original Message -
From: Holloway, Thomas (EDS) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 4:45 PM
Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features
Maybe it's a case of reductio ad absurdum but if I
If and
Write? I vote left-to-right (as if this were a decision that had to be
made.)
Thom H.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim
Self
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 4:06 PM
To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members
Think back to high school algebra. You know what I binomial is: it's a
polynomial consisting of two terms. What's a term?
--- Holloway, Thomas (EDS) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe it's a case of reductio ad absurdum but if I have a long
arithmetic list like:
Responses inline below
--- Jim Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greg Woodhouse wrote:
I guess what I had in mind with the baseball analogy is to rate
One of the best things about MUMPS for me is how very little it
reminds me of baseball. ;)
Sitting around doing nothing for hours while
That's a good point. Of course, polymorphism works at the object level,
essentially extending function overloading to types. The problem (or
not, depending on your point of view) is that objects are only
polymorphic within an inheritance hierarchy. Another problem is that
creating derived classes
Which language are you referring to? Ada? PL/1? Honestly, I don't know
either of those languages, so I couldn't say whether they use a single
level of precedence. Languages I have used include Basic, Visual Basic,
C, C++, Pascal, Object Pascal, MUMPS, Java, Perl, Python, Fortan 77,
Franz LISP and
Fair enough. I suppose I was focusing more on ...the one data type
in MUMPS than the statement that typing is contextually derived. I
would consider those two assertions mutually contradictory, but that
is a minor point. The important thing is the type polymorphism based
on context, as you
D) Trimmed, SET J=$ORDER(X()) KILL:J X(J)
E) Killed, KILL X
More later.
- Original Message -
From: Gregory Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 7:09 AM
Subject: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features
From: Gregory Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 07:09:00 -0700
To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features
...
.
or a double
(such as being able to intermix numbers
.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg
Woodhouse
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 3:51 PM
To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features
Hmm...I hesitate to do this, for fear of forgetting something
I believe that within the context of a global subscript, the values are all
strings. No distinction is made between what one may call 'numbers' and all
other concatenations of characters. Only as the subscript values are
interpreted outside of the context of an global subscript value do
-members] MUMPS features
I believe that within the context of a global subscript, the values are
all
strings. No distinction is made between what one may call 'numbers' and
all
other concatenations of characters. Only as the subscript values are
interpreted outside of the context of an global
Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features
Hmm...I hesitate to do this, for fear of forgetting something, but my
MUMPS greatest hits list, includes at least
1. Global arrays
2. Hierarchical arrays in general, and especially the ability to store
values at non-leaf nodes.
3. An integrated JOB
answer?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Greg
Woodhouse
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 1:51 PM
To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features
Hmm...I hesitate to do this, for fear
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg
Woodhouse
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 4:51 PM
To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features
Hmm...I hesitate to do this, for fear of forgetting something, but my
MUMPS greatest hits list, includes at least
1. Global
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Greg
Woodhouse
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 1:51 PM
To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features
Hmm...I hesitate to do this, for fear of forgetting something, but
my
MUMPS greatest hits list, includes
experience, can still get me into trouble sometimes.
To each his own.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg
Woodhouse
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 4:06 PM
To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Greg
Woodhouse
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 1:51 PM
To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features
Hmm...I hesitate to do this, for fear of forgetting something, but
my
MUMPS greatest hits list
Yes.
--- Cameron Schlehuber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, shouldn't your answer have been 14 and not 16 (I'm assuming base
10)?
===
Gregory Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Design quality doesn't ensure success, but design failure can ensure failure.
--Kent Beck
:15 PM
Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features
There's a more basic issue, too. If your expression grammar is
something like
I have no idea what these next two lines mean.
E ::= T | E + T | E - T
T ::= N | N * T | N / T
where N is a number, then
[2 + [3 * 4]]
is a valid parse
@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 5:15 PM
Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features
There's a more basic issue, too. If your expression grammar is
something like
I have no idea what these next two lines mean.
E ::= T | E + T | E - T
T ::= N | N * T | N / T
richard Davis wrote:
I believe that within the context of a global subscript, the values are all
strings. No distinction is made between what one may call 'numbers' and all
other concatenations of characters. Only as the subscript values are
interpreted outside of the context of an global
Greg Woodhouse wrote:
I guess what I had in mind with the baseball analogy is to rate
One of the best things about MUMPS for me is how very little it reminds me of
baseball. ;)
Sitting around doing nothing for hours while watching a few dozen men mostly
doing nothing
waiting for a rare moment
] On Behalf Of Greg
Woodhouse
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 7:36 PM
To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features
That's a good one, too. I'm all in favor of eliminating noise, by which
I mean parts of the program that are required but not directly related
. DAVIS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features
I believe that within the context of a global subscript, the values are
all
strings. No distinction is made between what one may call
Gregory wrote:
In every single language using infix notation (except MUMPS) that I'm
familiar with 2 + 3 * 4 = 16, and it is a longstanding convention in
mathematics that 2 + 3 * 4 is 2 + (3 * 4) not (2 + 3) * 4.
It's not that I can't live with strict left to right evaluation, it's
just that it's
Of course! Doh!
I am going back into my cave. :-)
Richard.
From: Jim Self [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:32:17 -0700 (PDT)
To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features
richard
30 matches
Mail list logo
