> "David" == David Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
David> Such a fund would be the ideal but, until it is set up, there is a
David> very easy way to fund the design team:
David> Folks, give us your address (or a PO box, or something), where we can
David> send checks. The checks won't be t
Oops, I just noticed Sean had mailed Dan and me privately, not on the list..
sorry for sending the reply here :-)
--
Matthijs van Duin -- May the Forth be with you!
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 11:38:31AM -0800, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
Here's what I take to be a (scheme) prototype of Matthijs' "success
continuations" approach. It actually works mostly by passing closures and
a state object, ...
Matthijs -- is this what you're describing?
It sounds like approach #2 ("
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 08:49:28AM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Matthijs van Duin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
you seem to have a much complexer model of hypotheses
than what's in my head.
The complex model is right -- in other words, if hypotheses are to be a
first-class part of the language t
--- Matthijs van Duin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 03:46:50PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> >>They should be though, if a variable was hypothesized when the
> >>continuation was taken, then it should be hypothesized when that
> >>continuation is invoked.
> >
> >Should t
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, David Storrs wrote:
> Folks, give us your address (or a PO box, or something), where we can
> send checks. The checks won't be tax deductible, but are we really
> doing this for the tax deduction?
... or a PayPal account. I've got $1.36 in my account ready to send to
the de
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 05:32:39PM -0500, James Mastros wrote:
> On 03/14/2003 3:22 PM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > That means that TPF's "perl development grant" fund is fine to donate
> > to, and if there's only enough cash for one grantee, and Larry's the
> > best candidate, that's keen. Setting u
At 12:00 AM + 3/20/03, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthijs Van Duin) writes:
OK, I suppose that works although that still means you're moving the
complexity from the perl implementation to its usage: in this case,
the perl 6 parser which is written in perl 6
No, I don't believe t
