 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>>> I asked because 'let' sounded to me like an assignment, which is not
>>> functional.
>> I'm pretty sure you're right about Lisp. But in Haskell, it's not an
>> assignment - although it does look like one.
>
> In Scheme and Lisp, let introduces new lexical scoped bindings for values, just
> like in Haskell. Except someone can use set! on them and break all referential
> transparency apart...
Ah, OK.
IIRC there's also a bunch of functions for modifying lists in-place that
Haskell also doesn't have...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> In Scheme and Lisp, let introduces new lexical scoped bindings for values, just
> like in Haskell. Except someone can use set! on them and break all referential
> transparency apart...
Maybe I confused "let" with "set".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 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? ;-)
googled:
http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/bf/
I don't lose time with that kind of stuff...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I wonder what something along the lines of this would do:
>
> foo a =
> let res = if a<2 then 1 else a*foo(a-1)
> in res
Looks like YAFFI [Yet Another Factorial Function] to me. ;-)
[And yes, for anybody else reading it, it works just fine...]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> begin
> readln("Number of Apples", apples);
> readln("Number of Carrots", carrots);
> readln("Price for 1 Apple", a_price);
> readln("Price for 1 Carrot", c_price);
> writeln("Total for Apples", a_total);
> writeln("Total for Carrots", c_total);
> writeln("Total", total);
> total := a_total + c_total;
> a_total := apples * a_price;
> c_total := carrots + c_price;
> end;
>
> * Me: "Well, your program can't print correct results before they're
> computed."
> * Him: "Huh? It's logical what the right solution is, and the computer
> should reorder the instructions the right way."
a functional programmer with no prior exposure to the imperative paradigm?!
Haskell is creating mindless monsters! :D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> a functional programmer with no prior exposure to the imperative paradigm?!
> Haskell is creating mindless monsters! :D
Hey, this was probably a long time ago! Maybe he was a Prolog
programmer? ;-)
*runs*
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:33:59 -0500, nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 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?
>> ;-)
>
> googled:
> http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/bf/
>
> I don't lose time with that kind of stuff...
I think you just broke my brain. And here I was thinking it was a joke
you made up. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:08:36 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>>> 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?
>> ;-)
>
> Oh yes, of course...
>
> http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/bf/
Now I *have* seen it all. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I think you just broke my brain.
Does exactly what it says on the tin.
> And here I was thinking it was a joke you made up. :-)
Oh no, it's definitely not a joke. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson escribió:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:33:59 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>> googled:
>> http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/bf/
>>
>> I don't lose time with that kind of stuff...
>
> I think you just broke my brain.
You mean he f**ked your brain?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
