/prog/ - CTRE JUST KICKED IN YO

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-25 10:52 ID:D8+JnrbS

http://laurikari.net/tre/index.html

Awesome or most awesome regexp library?

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-25 11:02 ID:Rg9CZcp3

Benchmarks or GTFO

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-25 11:21 ID:Heaven

fail for xbox-hueg gnu license.
any license bigger than 4KB is obviously trying to hide some clause that lets the author break into my house and rape me in the ass while i'm sleeping.

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-25 11:29 ID:Heaven

>>3
fuck your cluster size.

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-25 12:35 ID:i9HoQRf5

http://pcre.org/

Awesome or most awesome regexp library?

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-25 13:01 ID:GB8Ag7qz

>>1
Sounds great, but I'm missing PCRE features:

- Assertions (coming soon)
- Ungreedy and possessive quantifiers (very important!)
- Once-only subpatterns (important for performance)
- Recursivity (important)
- Conditional subpatterns

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-25 14:53 ID:hPU3KNTQ

>>1
Is it Touring-complete?

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-25 16:36 ID:3LiBaDKe

>>7
Not without >>6

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-27 12:12 ID:QLPxuQVV

>>6
Regular expressions should not be turing (or indeed touring since this is 4chan) complete. Larry Wall fails it.

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-27 12:24 ID:0P3S87GD

>>9
You fail at understanding touring-completeness.

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-27 13:10 ID:wN5OMK6S

>>10
QUACK!

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-27 13:35 ID:ukLh5QB1

>>9
its irrelevant whether or not a language is turing complete.

Name: Anonymous 2007-05-27 16:05 ID:QLPxuQVV

>>12
Yeah you're right. We should all program in HTML.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-06 8:31

They wearing Reimu and.

Name: Trollbot9000 2009-07-01 8:35

is 1 Hire software.

Name: Anonymous 2010-11-15 20:39

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-13 10:28

TEST

>>4

SICP makes a passing reference to lambda calculus with exercise 2.6

>Exercise 2.6. In case representing pairs as procedures wasn't mind-boggling enough, consider that, in a language that can manipulate procedures, we can get by without numbers (at least insofar as nonnegative integers are concerned) by implementing 0 and the operation of adding 1 as

>

(define zero (lambda (f) (lambda (x) x)))



(define (add-1 n)

  (lambda (f) (lambda (x) (f ((n f) x)))))

>This representation is known as Church numerals, after its inventor, Alonzo Church, the logician who invented the calculus.

>Define one and two directly (not in terms of zero and add-1). (Hint: Use substitution to evaluate (add-1 zero)). Give a direct definition of the addition procedure + (not in terms of repeated application of add-1).

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-13 10:29

FURTHER TESTING

Exercise 2.6. In case representing pairs as procedures wasn't mind-boggling enough, consider that, in a language that can manipulate procedures, we can get by without numbers (at least insofar as nonnegative integers are concerned) by implementing 0 and the operation of adding 1 as

(define zero (lambda (f) (lambda (x) x)))

(define (add-1 n)
(lambda (f) (lambda (x) (f ((n f) x)))))

This representation is known as Church numerals, after its inventor, Alonzo Church, the logician who invented the calculus.

Define one and two directly (not in terms of zero and add-1). (Hint: Use substitution to evaluate (add-1 zero)). Give a direct definition of the addition procedure + (not in terms of repeated application of add-1).

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-13 10:31

BBCODE

>Exercise 2.6. In case representing pairs as procedures wasn't mind-boggling enough, consider that, in a language that can manipulate procedures, we can get by without numbers (at least insofar as nonnegative integers are concerned) by implementing 0 and the operation of adding 1 as
>
>(define zero (lambda (f) (lambda (x) x)))
>
>

(define (add-1 n)

 (lambda (f) (lambda (x) (f ((n f) x)))))

>
>This representation is known as Church numerals, after its inventor, Alonzo Church, the logician who invented the calculus.
>
>Define one and two directly (not in terms of zero and add-1). (Hint: Use substitution to evaluate (add-1 zero)). Give a direct definition of the addition procedure + (not in terms of repeated application of add-1).

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-15 3:02

>>18-20
I KNOW YOUR AND YOU'RE BBCOED FAILURES!

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-15 7:14

[m][b]<--CHECK MY DUBS[/m][/m]

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-15 7:20

>>22
CHECK MY _B_BCode FAILURES

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-15 9:33

>>21
I did it in the name of _B^BCode science , I regret nothing!

Name: Sgt.Kabu㪀︶kiman迅ຆ 2012-05-29 2:13

Bringing /prog/ back to its people
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

CTRE JUST KICKED IN YO

1 Name: Anonymous 2007-05-25 10:52 ID:D8+JnrbS

2 Name: Anonymous 2007-05-25 11:02 ID:Rg9CZcp3

3 Name: Anonymous 2007-05-25 11:21 ID:Heaven

4 Name: Anonymous 2007-05-25 11:29 ID:Heaven

5 Name: Anonymous 2007-05-25 12:35 ID:i9HoQRf5

6 Name: Anonymous 2007-05-25 13:01 ID:GB8Ag7qz

7 Name: Anonymous 2007-05-25 14:53 ID:hPU3KNTQ

8 Name: Anonymous 2007-05-25 16:36 ID:3LiBaDKe

9 Name: Anonymous 2007-05-27 12:12 ID:QLPxuQVV

10 Name: Anonymous 2007-05-27 12:24 ID:0P3S87GD

11 Name: Anonymous 2007-05-27 13:10 ID:wN5OMK6S

12 Name: Anonymous 2007-05-27 13:35 ID:ukLh5QB1

13 Name: Anonymous 2007-05-27 16:05 ID:QLPxuQVV

14 Name: Anonymous 2009-03-06 8:31

15 Name: Trollbot9000 2009-07-01 8:35

16 Name: Anonymous 2010-11-15 20:39

18 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-13 10:28

19 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-13 10:29

20 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-13 10:31

21 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-15 3:02

22 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-15 7:14

23 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-15 7:20

24 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-15 9:33

25 Name: Sgt.Kabu㪀︶kiman迅ຆ 2012-05-29 2:13