3 ms·
Of course, there would also be things like this: 2 = 3 Which would now pass blithely though the parser only to raise a NoMethodError at run time because numbe
by dfranke 19y ago
Of course, there would also be things like this:
2 = 3
Which would now pass blithely though the parser only to raise a NoMethodError at run time because numbers do not implement an update method (At least, not in Ruby. Legend has it that this was legal in early versions of FORTRAN.
I recall a friend telling me a long time ago that REXX allowed this, but he no longer remembers and I can't verify.
- kajecounterhack 19y agoSee, thats why big brother is right! 2+2 = 5!
- michaelneale 19y ago<sound of the crack of an assault rifle from behind is heard>
- derefr 19y agoWhen I read the "lvalues and references" part, I thought about functional programming and equivalence. That is, an interpreter where you can state: f(g(h(x))) = n and any time the first was mentioned, it would be substituted with the second, and vice versa, whichever allows the evaluator to simplify to a greater extent. Then, thinking further, are there any programming languages that rely on the sorts of math where f(f^-1(x)) is simplified to x without being evaluated?
- jey 19y ago"Then, thinking further, are there any programming languages that rely on the sorts of math where f(f^-1(x)) is simplified to x without being evaluated?" Mathematica?
- Elepsis 19y agoMiserably enough I had to use REXX occasionally in my previous job. I no longer have it to verify, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised if something akin to that were indeed allowed.