Nothing but a bunch of stack-twiddling write-only bullshite.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-09 18:29
In my Lisp DSL I do it like this:
fadd [@xs x y] -> [@xs x+y]
fsub [@xs x y] -> [@xs x-y]
fmul [@xs x y] -> [@xs x*y]
fdiv [@xs x y] -> [@xs x/y]
fdup [@xs x] -> [@xs x x]
fdrp [@xs x] -> [@xs]
fsay [@xs x] -> do x.say [@xs]
[2 3].fdup.fadd.fmul.fsay // prints 12
where is your haskell now?
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-09 18:43
>>5
Haskell's
fsay . fmul . fadd . fdup [2, 3]
wont be pf either
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-09 18:46
>>7
So is in my DSL:
fanus =: ?.fdup.fadd.fmul.fsay
fanus [2 3]
>>23
You can filter him by using his DSL's pattern matching syntax as the filter pattern.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-09 19:30
>>23
You should use non-anonymouse BBS then. People, like me, who dont care about social norms, quickly get bans on non-anonymous sites. So, you should be safe there.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-09 19:32
>>22
And, BTW, I'm not trolling. Just posting my opinion. Sorry, if it insults you, guys, but Computer Science gets quite subjective at times.
>>28
The DSL is pseudocode: http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1296914507/37 f [x _ @xs] -> x+xs.f
How does it know to return 0 in the unmentioned cases, such the empty list case? How does it know what to return in the unmentioned cases of every function?
>>26
The only way to prove that you're not trolling is to post the entire implementation of your DSL somewhere. Zip/Rar/7z/tar.bz2/... it up and upload it to any free file host (if you don't know any, I can easily point you to any).
Jesus Christ, can't you just type in the naive recursive definition and have the HASKAL compiler automagically figure out the fastest implementation for it?