I have to say, these are my first steps in this kind of topic, so I could
be wrong, or I could be trying this people have tried a decade or two ago,
and noticed it does not work.
But I think that if I don't keep out semantics the final solution is less
general, because:
- The moment you apply verb
In this episode, we talk about how to raise the profile of the array languages
and make them more accessible to developers and the general public.
Host: Conor Hoekstra
Panel: Marshall Lochbaum, Richard Park, Stephen Taylor and Bob Therriault.
https://www.arraycast.com/episodes/episode38-array
The whole point is to suss out semantics. Why leave them out?
On Wed, 12 Oct 2022, Jan-Pieter Jacobs wrote:
Hi Elijah,
Thanks for your suggestions, they've been really helpful, the idea of
having an apply node is exactly what I was missing.
With that, verbs can be leafs, as well as nouns, so
oh, whoops, sorry bout that. I did not check what the email autocompleted to.
On 10/14/22, Jan-Pieter Jacobs wrote:
> I think you intended to send this to a different forum/mailinglist… It's
> for sure no J ;).
>
> Cheers,
> Jan-Pieter
>
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2022, 12:38 Razetime, wrote:
>
>> Current
I think you intended to send this to a different forum/mailinglist… It's
for sure no J ;).
Cheers,
Jan-Pieter
On Fri, 14 Oct 2022, 12:38 Razetime, wrote:
> Currently I have these two predicates in my program that I think I can
> make deterministic.
>
> :- pred entry(list(string)::in, list(int):
Currently I have these two predicates in my program that I think I can
make deterministic.
:- pred entry(list(string)::in, list(int)::out) is det.
entry(Dirs, Out) :-
map((pred(X::in, [L,R]::out) is det :-
split(X, 1, L, R)),
Dirs, Spl),
foldl2((pred([T, B]::in, D::in, Ds::out,
