 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> whoa! Haskell is becoming another Perl or Brainf*ck.
Nah. You can write increadibly cryptic stuff in *any* language. ;-)
I'm sure somebody could come up with some POV-Ray SDL like this if they
tried hard enough...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> (g,s) = (\x -> x, \x -> x*x)
>
> That last line is the best. I didn't even realise you could *do* that!
yes! very cool! Looks like Perl/Python 2 way assignment, but of course there's
no assignment here, it's 2 functions defined in the same line by 2 tuples!
Haskell is amazing...
> Very odd...
>
> Right, so, let's do some analysis here.
man, just run this madness and see what it does...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> (g,s) = (\x -> x, \x -> x*x)
>>
>> That last line is the best. I didn't even realise you could *do* that!
>
> yes! very cool! Looks like Perl/Python 2 way assignment, but of course there's
> no assignment here, it's 2 functions defined in the same line by 2 tuples!
> Haskell is amazing...
I should have realised that this was possible - I've just never seen it
at the top-level before.
It's kinda nice to be able to write things like
(a',b',c',d') = (b,c,d,a)
to do a rotation. All those C programmers are sitting there defining
temporary variables to handle the shuffle, while I can just tell the
compiler exactly what I want the end result to be, and it just does it...
Interestingly, the compiler infers some rather strange types for those
functions. Clearly \x -> x is id, yet the compiler infers a less general
type than this - presumably due to the tupling. Or perhaps to the other
call sites in the program, I'm not sure...
>> Very odd...
>>
>> Right, so, let's do some analysis here.
>
> man, just run this madness and see what it does...
And how do you suggest I do that, given that there's no obvious "entry
point"?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> It's not obfuscated if it has readable function names.
I don't think readable means much when all you get is "un" or "po". You could
change those for kanji and it'd make about as much sense...
of course, you could try to guess: perhaps "un" is to unfoo something and "po"
to position something. not much better...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:46:25 -0500, nemesis wrote:
> Brainf*ck.
Now there's a language I'm unfamiliar with - who wrote the book on that
one? ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> -- "coll" uses "un" to split a text string into blocks of 25 characters.
> So idea why.
Well *obviously* I actually meant to type 35...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Brainf*ck.
>
> Now there's a language I'm unfamiliar with - who wrote the book on that
> one? ;-)
As the name suggests, it's a language specifically designed to be
incomprehensible. [Unlike, say, the SKI calculus, which *is*
incomprehensible, but not by design...]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:02:40 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>
>> -- "coll" uses "un" to split a text string into blocks of 25
>> characters. So idea why.
>
> Well *obviously* I actually meant to type 35...
What, even with separate keys on the keyboard? <scnr> <g>
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:03:31 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>>> Brainf*ck.
>>
>> Now there's a language I'm unfamiliar with - who wrote the book on that
>> one? ;-)
>
> As the name suggests, it's a language specifically designed to be
> incomprehensible. [Unlike, say, the SKI calculus, which *is*
> incomprehensible, but not by design...]
Well, yes, but at the same time, there must be a definitive reference on
it. Or is it the "ipsum lorem" text that's considered definitive? ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Well *obviously* I actually meant to type 35...
>
> What, even with separate keys on the keyboard? <scnr> <g>
Care to count how many characters I typed *correctly*? ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
