[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (*) -> 1
From: |
Óscar Fuentes |
Subject: |
Re: (*) -> 1 |
Date: |
Wed, 18 Jan 2023 08:50:07 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) |
Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de> writes:
> Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es> writes:
>
>> The languages that use the concept of partially applied function usually
>> have no support for variadic functions, so the duality problem you refer
>> to is not an issue.
>
> Interesting. I do not know many other languages.
>
> I see your point now: while I wrote about the procedure of finding an
> interpretation [of the technical or mathematical semantics of a formula]
> in the real world [this is what had been ongoing: Ferraris etc], you
> mention that even the technical/theoretical semantics of a formula like
> (*) can be different. This is an interesting point, especially since
> terms like "right" and "wrong" had been used.
>
> Although I think the "meaning" of the expression (*) in Elisp is clear,
> it describes a mathematical term, so the question, asked specifically
> for Elisp, has to be answered using the mathematical background. In my
> understanding the OP asked specifically about the empty algebraic
> product.
I was prompted to enter the discussion when I saw your reference to
Mathematics. As almost every other math-related thing in computers,
Elisp's + is a toy representation of Sigma. And then the relevant
characteristics of Sigma for this discussion are a convention among
practitioners, not a proper mathematical fact.
Although it is possible that the implementors were inspired by Sigma, I
think it is more probable that they made + variadic because s-exps like
(+ (+ 1 2) 3) are awkward and then extended the function with support
for 0 and 1 arguments because they are convenient when defining macros.
- Re: (*) -> 1, (continued)
- Re: (*) -> 1, Óscar Fuentes, 2023/01/17
- Re: (*) -> 1, Jean Louis, 2023/01/17
- Re: (*) -> 1, Óscar Fuentes, 2023/01/17
- Re: (*) -> 1, Jean Louis, 2023/01/18
- Re: (*) -> 1, Óscar Fuentes, 2023/01/18
- RE: [External] : Re: (*) -> 1, Drew Adams, 2023/01/18
- Re: (*) -> 1, Michael Heerdegen, 2023/01/17
- Re: (*) -> 1, Michael Heerdegen, 2023/01/17
- Re: (*) -> 1, Óscar Fuentes, 2023/01/17
- Re: (*) -> 1, Michael Heerdegen, 2023/01/17
- Re: (*) -> 1,
Óscar Fuentes <=
- Re: (*) -> 1, tomas, 2023/01/18
- Re: (*) -> 1, Óscar Fuentes, 2023/01/18
- Re: (*) -> 1, Michael Heerdegen, 2023/01/18
- Re: (*) -> 1, Óscar Fuentes, 2023/01/18
- Re: (*) -> 1, Andreas Eder, 2023/01/18
- Re: (*) -> 1, Óscar Fuentes, 2023/01/18
- Re: (*) -> 1, Jean Louis, 2023/01/17
- Re: [External] : Re: How to make M-x TAB not work on (interactive) declaration?, Emanuel Berg, 2023/01/17
- Re: [External] : Re: How to make M-x TAB not work on (interactive) declaration?, Jean Louis, 2023/01/15
- Re: [External] : Re: How to make M-x TAB not work on (interactive) declaration?, tomas, 2023/01/16