Re: Junctions again (was Re: binding arguments)

2006-01-05 Thread Rob Kinyon
On 1/4/06, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Of course, this was introduced for a reason: > > sub min($x,$y) { > $x <= $y ?? $x !! $y > } > sub min2($x, $y) { > if $x <= $y { return $x } > if $x > $y { return $y } > } > > In the presence of junctions,

Re: Junctions again (was Re: binding arguments)

2006-01-05 Thread Jonathan Lang
Rob Kinyon wrote: > To me, this implies that junctions don't have a complete definition. > Either they're ordered or they're not. Either I can put them in a <= > expression and it makes sense or I can't. If it makes sense, then that > implies that if $x <= $y is true, then $x > $y is false. Otherwi

Re: binding arguments

2006-01-05 Thread Juerd
Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-12-25 17:37 (+0100): > I disagree about binding only being a language thing: I fail to see how your example code illustrates your disagreement. > return 42 > if (my $short := $long_parameter_name) == $specialcase; That's terribly horrible style!

Re: binding arguments

2006-01-05 Thread Ingo Blechschmidt
Hi, Juerd wrote: > Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-12-25 17:37 (+0100): >> I disagree about binding only being a language thing: > > I fail to see how your example code illustrates your disagreement. > >> return 42 >> if (my $short := $long_parameter_name) == $specialcase; I

Re: binding arguments

2006-01-05 Thread Juerd
Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2006-01-05 18:32 (+0100): > Juerd wrote: > > Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-12-25 17:37 (+0100): > >> I disagree about binding only being a language thing: > > I fail to see how your example code illustrates your disagreement. > >> return 42 > >> if (my

Re: Junctions again (was Re: binding arguments)

2006-01-05 Thread David Green
On 1/4/06, Luke Palmer wrote: The other thing that is deeply disturbing to me, but apparently not to many other people, is that I could have a working, well-typed program with explicit annotations. I don't think it disturbs me... but that might just be because I don't really understand it.

Re: Junctions again (was Re: binding arguments)

2006-01-05 Thread TSa
HaloO, Jonathan Lang wrote: Rob Kinyon wrote: To me, this implies that junctions don't have a complete definition. Either they're ordered or they're not. So, is there a number between 0 and 1? Shades between black and white? When is a 360 degree turn not returning a system into its initial s

Re: Junctions again (was Re: binding arguments)

2006-01-05 Thread Jonathan Lang
Me no follow. Please use smaller words? -- Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang