3 ms·
Actually looks pretty interesting and impressive to me. One question: does numerical destructing require that one of the terms be a constant? What happens if
by lisper 4y ago
Actually looks pretty interesting and impressive to me.
One question: does numerical destructing require that one of the terms be a constant? What happens if I write y ~ a + b ?
Also:
> In Tao, arg:f is shorthand for f(arg)
Did you mean arg -> f ?
- zesterer 4y ago> does numerical destructing require that one of the terms be a constant? Yes, the general pattern is `n + K`. I'm looking to expanding this to other operations in the future too. > Did you mean arg -> f ? Yes. I changed the syntax recently, but forgot to change the README. Thanks for pointing this out!
- lisper 4y ago> Yes, the general pattern is `n + K`. OK, so what is the intended benefit of y ~ x + 1 over x = y - 1 ? I can see an obvious benefit if I can write y ~ x + z where neither x nor z is a constant and the resulting semantics invoke some kind of mathematical constraint management system or backtracking search a la Prolog, but if I'm constrained to write things that can be trivially transformed into a binding I don't see the point.