When you write:
(1..Inf) equal (0..Inf)
I'd like Perl to consider that false rather than having a blank look
on its face for a long time.
The price of that consideration would be to give the Mathematicians
blank looks on *their* faces for a very long time instead. Certainly,
they'll be
On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 03:22:17PM -0700, Tom Christiansen wrote:
When you write:
(1..Inf) equal (0..Inf)
I'd like Perl to consider that false rather than having a blank look
on its face for a long time.
The price of that consideration would be to give the Mathematicians
blank looks on
On Sun, Apr 06, 2003 at 12:38:29AM +0200, Matthijs van Duin wrote:
In other words, if you treat Inf as any particular number (which Mr
Mathematician stridently yet somewhat ineffectually reminds you that are
*not* allowed to do!), then you may get peculiar results.
There is no problem with doing
Tom Christiansen wrote:
[...]
The price of that consideration would be to give the Mathematicians
blank looks on *their* faces for a very long time instead. Certainly,
they'll be quick to tell you there are just as many whole numbers
as naturals. So they won't know what you mean by equal up
You can define is very easily: two lists are equal if the ith element of
one list is equal to the ith element of the other list, for all valid
indices i.
The problem is that you've slipped subtly from a well-known creature, like
1..10, a finite set of ten distinct integers, to a quite a
Unless I'm very wrong, there are more whole numbers than natural
numbers. An induction should prove that there are twice as many.
We're probably having a language and/or terminology collision. By natural
numbers, I mean the positive integers. By whole numbers, I mean the
natural numbers plus
The IEEE-float-style infinities are quite sufficient for most purposes
One thing I agree is that writing 1..Inf is a *bit* sloppy since the
range operator n..m normally produces the numbers i for which
n = i = m while n..Inf gives n = i Inf
but I can live with it
I could sure save
Um. Maybe it was just bad writing on my part, but it does not seem
to me that what I already said about RFC 93 in A5 has sunk in at all.
Larry
On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 08:26:38PM -0500, Joe Gottman wrote:
:Is there any way to write a user-defined operator so that it
: short-circuits, like and || ? This might be function trait, for
: instance,
:
: sub infix:!! ($lhs, $rhs) is short_circuit {...}
Honestly, you guys. You make
On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 06:39:24PM -0500, Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
: Of course, you can also cast the objects to change what type of comparison
: you want. So, for example, C$a =:= $b compares the outputs of the
: value_for_comparison methods, but C~$a =:= ~$b compares the numification
: of the
On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 03:22:17PM -0700, Tom Christiansen wrote:
: When you write:
:
: (1..Inf) equal (0..Inf)
:
: I'd like Perl to consider that false rather than having a blank look
: on its face for a long time.
:
: The price of that consideration would be to give the Mathematicians
:
Maybe it's time to pick this list up again.
It seems the last thing that happened is that Mike started the
Arrays/Hashes section. That was two months ago. What's the next
thing up?
Chapter 2 of the camel seems to think that typeglobs^Wfilehandles come
next. IIRC, we haven't covered context
12 matches
Mail list logo
