Larry Wall wrote:
Though actually, now that I think about it, the cascaded notation
in S12 is illegal according to S03, since "does" is classified as
non-chaining, which implies non-associative. Hmm. We'd have to make
it right associative somehow. Put it in with ** maybe?
Hmm.
Or leave it no
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 01:32:14PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: >The | notation is mentioned in S012:1029, by the way. Obviously you
: >still haven't quite memorized all the synopses. :-)
:
: Actually, I was very well aware of that fact.
Oops, didn't realize you were suggesting a semantic chan
Though actually, now that I think about it, the cascaded notation
in S12 is illegal according to S03, since "does" is classified as
non-chaining, which implies non-associative. Hmm. We'd have to make
it right associative somehow. Put it in with ** maybe?
Hmm.
Or leave it non-associative and fo
-- Original message --
From: "Jonathan Lang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Mark Biggar wrote:
> > Jonathan Lang wrote:
> > > They can be:
> > >
> > > $A > $B if $A.x > $B.x | $A.y > $B.y;
> > > $A < $B if $A.x < $B.x | $A.y < $B.y;
> >
> > That dosn't work.
>
> Agreed
Author: larry
Date: Wed Oct 18 14:49:21 2006
New Revision: 13211
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S05.pod
Log:
missing = from particle++
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S05.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S05.pod
Mark Biggar wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
> They can be:
>
> $A > $B if $A.x > $B.x | $A.y > $B.y;
> $A < $B if $A.x < $B.x | $A.y < $B.y;
That dosn't work.
Agreed. The above was written in haste, and contained a couple of
fatal syntax errors that I didn't intend. Try this:
multi infix
Author: larry
Date: Wed Oct 18 13:57:40 2006
New Revision: 13210
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S05.pod
Log:
word boundaries are defined in terms of \w, not \s
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S05.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/
Larry Wall wrote:
You've got it inside out. Unordered is just "does A | B | C" or
some such, the | there really being coerced to a set construction,
not a junction. In fact, & would work just as well. I only used |
because it's more readable. Autocoercion of junctions to sets is,
of course, c
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 04:22:59PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: I've never really been happy with the inconsistency between runtime
: composition and compile-time composition; but my problem has generally
: been with the runtime side of things - in particular, I find the fact
: that "does A does B
-- Original message --
From: "Jonathan Lang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> TSa wrote:
> > Jonathan Lang wrote:
> > > If at all possible, I would expect Complex to compose Num, thus
> > > letting a Complex be used anywhere that a Num is requested.
> >
> > This will not work.
TSa wrote:
you wrote:
> I think I found the core of the issue here; it has to do with the
> differences between roles and mixins, with an analogous difference
> between compile-time composition and runtime composition. Details
> follow.
I think we are basically through the discussion. Thank you
Nicholas Clark wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
> They can be:
>
> $A > $B if $A.x > $B.x | $A.y > $B.y;
> $A < $B if $A.x < $B.x | $A.y < $B.y;
>
> This also allows you to unambiguously order any arbitrary set of
> complex numbers.
If I'm reading that correctly then there are values of $A and $B f
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 06:55:16AM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
> TSa wrote:
> >Jonathan Lang wrote:
> >> If at all possible, I would expect Complex to compose Num, thus
> >> letting a Complex be used anywhere that a Num is requested.
> >
> >This will not work. The Num type is ordered the Complex ty
TSa wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
> If at all possible, I would expect Complex to compose Num, thus
> letting a Complex be used anywhere that a Num is requested.
This will not work. The Num type is ordered the Complex type isn't.
The operators <, <=, > and >= are not available in Complex.
They c
HaloO Jonathan,
you wrote:
I think I found the core of the issue here; it has to do with the
differences between roles and mixins, with an analogous difference
between compile-time composition and runtime composition. Details
follow.
I think we are basically through the discussion. Thank you
HaloO,
Jonathan Lang wrote:
If at all possible, I would expect Complex to compose Num, thus
letting a Complex be used anywhere that a Num is requested.
This will not work. The Num type is ordered the Complex type isn't.
The operators <, <=, > and >= are not available in Complex. Though
I can i
16 matches
Mail list logo
