in 710625 20131119 091055 wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
>Le lundi 18 novembre 2013 14:31:33 UTC+1, Steven D'Aprano a =E9crit=A0:
>>
>>
>> ... choose one of the three bad choices: ...
>>
>>
>>
>> * choose UTF-16 or UTF-8, and have O(n) primitive string operations (like=
>=20
>>
>> Haskell and, appar
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Which sum would that be?
Addition of vectors, matrices, quaternions, tensors, something else?
Considering vectors, multiplying a vector by a scalar
can be thought of as putting n copies of the vector
together nose-to-tail.
That's not very much different from putting n c
Le lundi 18 novembre 2013 14:31:33 UTC+1, Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
>
>
> ... choose one of the three bad choices: ...
>
>
>
> * choose UTF-16 or UTF-8, and have O(n) primitive string operations (like
>
> Haskell and, apparently, Ceylon);
>
>
>
> * or UTF-16 without support for the sup
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> py> "a" * "4"
>> ''
>>
>> Okay, that makes sense, but what about:
>>
>> py> "a" * ""
>>
>> That will haunt your nightmares!
>
> You're easily terrified if you have nightmares about that. I can't
> imagine what you would
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 19:33:01 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
> I've never *really* been crazy about the plus operator concatenating
> strings anyhow, however, the semantics of "+" seem to navigate the
> "perilous waters of intuition" far better than "*".
>
> Addition of numeric types is well defin
I've never *really* been crazy about the plus operator
concatenating strings anyhow, however, the semantics of "+"
seem to navigate the "perilous waters of intuition" far
better than "*".
Addition of numeric types is well defined in maths:
Take N inputs values and *reduce* them into a sing
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Still, given that Pike and Python have already solved this problem, and
> have O(1) string indexing operations and length for any Unicode string,
> SMP and BMP, it is a major disappointment that Ceylon doesn't.
And of course, the part that
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 10:25:00 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> But the problem is also with strings coming back from JS.
>
> Just because you call it a "string" in Ceylon, doesn't mean you have to
> use the native Javascript string type unc
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:37:12 -0500, Dave Angel wrote:
> If you use nearly all of the possible 2 byte values then adding 2 more
> bytes won't give you anywhere near 4 bI'll ion characters. You're
> perhaps thinking of bringing in four more bytes when the length exceeds
> 32k.
Yep, I screwed up. Th
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 10:25:00 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> But the problem is also with strings coming back from JS.
Just because you call it a "string" in Ceylon, doesn't mean you have to
use the native Javascript string type unchanged.
Since the Ceylon compiler controls what Javascript oper
On 11/18/2013 05:51 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
can I safely assume that we'll be seeing a PEP fairly shortly?
For Immediate Press Release:
We at TundraWare are now entering our 10th year of debate in the YAPDL
design as to what ought to be a statement and what ought to be a function.
The State
On 17/11/2013 22:48, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 11/17/2013 04:33 PM, Gregory Ewing wrote:
Mark Lawrence wrote:
As a rule of thumb people don't like change? This obviously assumes
that language designers are people :)
That's probably true (on both counts).
I guess this means we need to encourag
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> I suppose that's not terrible, except for the O(n) string operations
> which is just dumb. Yes, it's better than buggy, broken strings. But
> still dumb, because those aren't the only choices. For example, for the
> sake of an extra two byt
On 11/17/2013 04:33 PM, Gregory Ewing wrote:
Mark Lawrence wrote:
As a rule of thumb people don't like change? This obviously assumes that
language designers are people :)
That's probably true (on both counts).
I guess this means we need to encourage more
Pythoneers to become language desi
On 18 Nov 2013 14:30:54 GMT, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
- 15 bits for a length.
15 bits give you a maximum length of 32767. There are ways around
that.
E.g. a length of 0 through 32766 means exactly what it says; a
length of
32767 means that the next two bytes are part of the length too,
givi
On 18/11/2013 14:31, Piet van Oostrum wrote:
Chris Angelico writes:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Nov 18, 2013 3:06 AM, "Chris Angelico" wrote:
I'm trying to figure this out. Reading the docs hasn't answered this.
If each character in a string is a 32-bit Unicode
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:33:27 -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
> http://ceylon-lang.org/documentation/1.0/introduction/
I must say there are a few questionable design choices, in my opinion,
but I am absolutely in love with the following two features:
1) variables are constant by default;
2) the fat
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:31:33 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:04:41 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:44 PM, wrote:
>>> string
>>> Satisfied Interfaces: Category, Cloneable>,
>>> Collection, Comparable,
>>> Correspondence, Iterable,
>>> List, Rang
Chris Angelico writes:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 18, 2013 3:06 AM, "Chris Angelico" wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm trying to figure this out. Reading the docs hasn't answered this.
>>> If each character in a string is a 32-bit Unicode character, and (as
>>> can be se
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:31 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> Unless they have done something *really* clever, the language designers
> lose a hundred million points for screwing up text strings. There is
> *absolutely no excuse* for a new, modern language with no backwards
> compatibility concerns t
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:04:41 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:44 PM, wrote:
>> string
>> Satisfied Interfaces: Category, Cloneable>,
>> Collection, Comparable,
>> Correspondence, Iterable,
>> List, Ranged, Summable A string of
>> characters. Each character in the string i
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>
> On Nov 18, 2013 3:06 AM, "Chris Angelico" wrote:
>>
>> I'm trying to figure this out. Reading the docs hasn't answered this.
>> If each character in a string is a 32-bit Unicode character, and (as
>> can be seen in the examples) string indexi
On Nov 18, 2013 3:06 AM, "Chris Angelico" wrote:
>
> I'm trying to figure this out. Reading the docs hasn't answered this.
> If each character in a string is a 32-bit Unicode character, and (as
> can be seen in the examples) string indexing and slicing are
> supported, then does string indexing me
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:44 PM, wrote:
> string
> Satisfied Interfaces: Category, Cloneable>, Collection,
> Comparable, Correspondence, Iterable,
> List, Ranged, Summable
> A string of characters. Each character in the string is a 32-bit Unicode
> character. The internal UTF-16 encoding is hidde
On 18/11/2013 09:44, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
character
Satisfied Interfaces: Comparable, Enumerable,
Ordinal
A 32-bit Unicode character.
Satisfied Interfaces: Category, Cloneable>, Collection,
Comparable, Correspondence, Iterable,
List, Ranged, Summable
string
Satisfied Interfaces: Category
character
Satisfied Interfaces: Comparable, Enumerable,
Ordinal
A 32-bit Unicode character.
Satisfied Interfaces: Category, Cloneable>, Collection,
Comparable, Correspondence, Iterable,
List, Ranged, Summable
string
Satisfied Interfaces: Category, Cloneable>, Collection,
Comparable, Corresponden
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Gregory Ewing
wrote:
> Rick Johnson wrote:
>>
>> The multiplication operator can ONLY be used on
>> numerics.
>
>
> I'm not convinced about that part. I notice that
> subtraction, multiplication and division are bundled
> into a single interface Numeric, bu
Rick Johnson wrote:
The multiplication operator can ONLY be used on
numerics.
I'm not convinced about that part. I notice that
subtraction, multiplication and division are bundled
into a single interface Numeric, but there is a
separate one called Summable for addition --
apparently so
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Gregory Ewing
wrote:
> Mark Lawrence wrote:
>
>> As a rule of thumb people don't like change? This obviously assumes that
>> language designers are people :)
>
>
> That's probably true (on both counts).
>
> I guess this means we need to encourage more
> Pythoneers
On Saturday, November 16, 2013 9:41:07 PM UTC-6, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> The type system looks very interesting!
Indeed.
I went to the site assuming this would be another language
that i would never like, however, after a few minutes
reading the tour, i could not stop!
I read through the entire t
Mark Lawrence wrote:
As a rule of thumb people don't like change? This obviously assumes
that language designers are people :)
That's probably true (on both counts).
I guess this means we need to encourage more
Pythoneers to become language designers!
--
Greg
--
https://mail.python.org/mail
On 17/11/2013 03:41, Gregory Ewing wrote:
Neal Becker wrote:
http://ceylon-lang.org/documentation/1.0/introduction/
The type system looks very interesting!
It's just a pity they based the syntax on C rather
than something more enlightened. (Why do people
keep doing that when they design langu
Hi Stephen
On Sunday, 17 November 2013 05:48:58 UTC, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> [...]
>
> > It's just a pity they based the syntax on C rather than something more
> > enlightened. (Why do people keep doing that when they design languages?)
>
>
> When the only tool you've used is a hammer, ever
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 16:41:07 +1300, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Neal Becker wrote:
>> http://ceylon-lang.org/documentation/1.0/introduction/
>
> The type system looks very interesting!
>
> It's just a pity they based the syntax on C rather than something more
> enlightened. (Why do people keep doing
On 17Nov2013 15:10, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Gregory Ewing
> wrote:
> > Neal Becker wrote:
> >> http://ceylon-lang.org/documentation/1.0/introduction/
> >
> > The type system looks very interesting!
> >
> > It's just a pity they based the syntax on C rather
> > tha
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Gregory Ewing
wrote:
> Neal Becker wrote:
>>
>> http://ceylon-lang.org/documentation/1.0/introduction/
>
>
> The type system looks very interesting!
>
> It's just a pity they based the syntax on C rather
> than something more enlightened. (Why do people
> keep doin
Neal Becker wrote:
http://ceylon-lang.org/documentation/1.0/introduction/
The type system looks very interesting!
It's just a pity they based the syntax on C rather
than something more enlightened. (Why do people
keep doing that when they design languages?)
--
Greg
--
https://mail.python.org
37 matches
Mail list logo
