3 ms·
> 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 operation
by 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.