Robert Spier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Ah... that would explain why I haven't seen it then. Looks like
>>someone broke perl6-all.
>
> No, it was just "not configured".
>
> Future messages to perl6-documentation should end up on perl6-all.
Good oh.
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally ac
>Ah... that would explain why I haven't seen it then. Looks like
>someone broke perl6-all.
No, it was just "not configured".
Future messages to perl6-documentation should end up on perl6-all.
-R
On Friday, November 8, 2002, at 07:03 AM, Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
I still prefer "cached", which sounds less lingo-ish than "memoized"
but reads
better than "same" ("Same as what?").
Insert obligatory reference to Eiffel here, which IIR uses the word
"once":
sub square ( Num $n ) is same
"Markus Laire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 8 Nov 2002 at 9:12, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 10:45 PM, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> > Those of us with subs to perl6-all will get this anyway, right?
>>
>> I posted an initial message about five minutes ago, so if
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 12:12:53PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
>
>> What's wrong with C?
>>
>> C ain't bad either, but it won't appeal to
>> non-mathematicians---even certain kinds of mathematicians.
>> Mathematica thinks a "pure" function is what we think
I still prefer "cached", which sounds less lingo-ish than "memoized" but reads
better than "same" ("Same as what?").
> Billy Naylor asked:
>
> > Would it be useful to apply memoization in a similar fashion...
> >
> > sub square ( Num $n ) is memo {
> > return $n ** $n;
> > }
>
> Yes. La
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 11:41:38AM -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
> Luke Palmer:
> # What's wrong with C?
> #
> # C ain't bad either, but it won't appeal to
> # non-mathematicians---even certain kinds of mathematicians.
> # Mathematica thinks a "pure" function is what we think of as
> # an "anonymous"
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 05:30:00PM +0100, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 03:04:16PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 08:22:17PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
The name of the property is still under debate. Larry favours:
sub square
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 05:30:00PM +0100, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 03:04:16PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 08:22:17PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
> > > The name of the property is still under debate. Larry favours:
> > >
> > > sub square ( Num $n
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 12:12:53PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> What's wrong with C?
>
> C ain't bad either, but it won't appeal to
> non-mathematicians---even certain kinds of mathematicians.
> Mathematica thinks a "pure" function is what we think of as an
> "anonymous" sub. So I like C.
Part o
Luke Palmer:
# What's wrong with C?
#
# C ain't bad either, but it won't appeal to
# non-mathematicians---even certain kinds of mathematicians.
# Mathematica thinks a "pure" function is what we think of as
# an "anonymous" sub. So I like C.
How about C, in an analogy to physics?
steady state
> Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 15:04:16 +
> From: Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> And to people in the perl5 know, Memoize is the module that implements this,
> hence why people who know of how and what Memoize can do favour that name.
> Except that it's not necessarily obvious to everyone else
On 8 Nov 2002 at 9:12, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>
> On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 10:45 PM, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > Those of us with subs to perl6-all will get this anyway, right?
>
> I posted an initial message about five minutes ago, so if you received
> it, then yes. :-)
There are few m
On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 10:45 PM, Piers Cawley wrote:
Those of us with subs to perl6-all will get this anyway, right?
I posted an initial message about five minutes ago, so if you received
it, then yes. :-)
MikeL
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 03:04:16PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 08:22:17PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
> > The name of the property is still under debate. Larry favours:
> >
> > sub square ( Num $n ) is same {...}
> >
> > whereas others feel that:
> >
> > sub sq
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 08:22:17PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
> Billy Naylor asked:
>
> > Would it be useful to apply memoization in a similar fashion...
> >
> > sub square ( Num $n ) is memo {
> > return $n ** $n;
> > }
>
> Yes. Larry indicated this in A2
> (see http://search.cpan.org/
Larry Wall wrote:
... I can see ways of binding properties
to a location without growing the location itself, but I think stuffing
a junction of ints into a single location is somewhat problematical.
We are still talking about native types - these with lowercase names in
the docs? Why should
Luke Palmer wrote:
sub a_pure_func(Num $n) returns Num {
class is Num {
method FETCH { $n * $n } }.new
}
Yes? No?
Not quite.
> sub a_pure_func(Num $n) returns Num {
> class is Num {
> has Num $cache;
> method FETCH { $cache //
Billy Naylor asked:
Would it be useful to apply memoization in a similar fashion...
sub square ( Num $n ) is memo {
return $n ** $n;
}
Yes. Larry indicated this in A2
(see http://search.cpan.org/perl6/apo/A02.pod#Properties).
The name of the property is still under debate. Larry favours:
Damian Conway wrote:
> we could make it lazy thus:
>
> sub a_pure_func(Num $n) is lazy returns Num {
> return $n ** $n
> }
>
> which would cause any invocation of C to cache
> its arguments (probably in a closure) and return a "proxy"
> Num that carries out the computation on
20 matches
Mail list logo
