utx00

10 ms·

91.
by utx00 18y ago
you may want to take a look at http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-submodul... . mercurial lacks this as of now.
92.
by utx00 18y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKeys
93.
by utx00 18y ago
this is the best post ever. you can move to a non-competitive place. somewhere in the south maybe. you won't have to work long days, or even a lot. good luck on your "travels".
94.
by utx00 18y ago
booya!
95.
by utx00 18y ago
but that is (one of) the point of the index. that you can build of to a clean changeset to commit. hg mq is easier i think.
96.
by utx00 18y ago
i prefer hg too. cheap local branching: there's bookmarks, there's named branches, and there is mq. one of the cool things about mq is that the patch queues can themselves be an hg repo. so if you're using a patch queue like you would the g
97.
by utx00 18y ago
<sarcastic> sounds like fun </sarcastic> Unlike Qi I, Qi II allows you to embed sequent rules within functions, evaluating them to closures. These rule closures are type checked and are permeable to having their variables l
98.
by utx00 18y ago
thanks. i stopped using it about a year ago because it was getting really slow. maybe i should have another looksie.
99.
by utx00 18y ago
ah thanks. is there a limit?
100.
by utx00 18y ago
i'm just trying to bookmark this article so that it appears under my comments. if anyone can suggest a better way (and bookmarking on the browser is not good enough, as i move around computers all day)
101.
by utx00 18y ago
bmk
102.
by utx00 18y ago
could one even hold on?!
103.
by utx00 18y ago
too difficult
104.
by utx00 18y ago
no
105.
by utx00 18y ago
still files as in "we're looking at something else"?
106.
by utx00 18y ago
bookmark
107.
by utx00 18y ago
do you know if its possible to find emulators? or even the machines themselves? thanks!
108.
by utx00 18y ago
not what i meant, but i like the sentiment.
109.
by utx00 18y ago
ha! thanks man (or gal)
110.
by utx00 18y ago
does anyone know if there is one like this written in common lisp?
111.
by utx00 18y ago
that's interesting. in the original german! you're braver than me. i think DSL's are good for the same points you bring up. i am more concerned with the DSL ability to express a problem/solution. the DSL itself of course necessitates diff
112.
by utx00 18y ago
sure. but i only put forward the 'expand your intuition" argument as a rebuttal to your "models of understanding". i am saying though that the very same concepts that gave rise to lisp, also make it more powerful in practice. "in the field
113.
by utx00 18y ago
sorry, i meant explicitly to a computer. some of the ideas i need to express in order to make a living are not so easily expressed in python: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=343738
114.
by utx00 18y ago
yes, but you have the ability to tailor the language and create constructs to deal with your problems more concisely. i learned lisp before C. i always found C to be very obtuse and arbitrary. for example: 1. why can't i define a function
115.
by utx00 18y ago
they are different domains of expression. so that should not come as surprise. maybe one day when computers are super powerful. for now "code is data and we write in the same data structures the compiler understands" seem like the bigger w
116.
by utx00 18y ago
on the surface. yes. which one do you consider more powerful as a tool for expressing ideas?
117.
by utx00 18y ago
But who's to say your experience with a given subject domain does not expand your intuition and creates new models of understanding? btw, if object is not null is closer to (nil? object) than to (list '1 '2 'foo) lisp may not be simpler, it
118.
by utx00 18y ago
please explain.
119.
by utx00 18y ago
Danielle Steele vs. Jane Austen ... or something.
120.
by utx00 18y ago
are the axioms of non-euclidean geometry obvious? what about special relativity?

More ›