in reply to Unparseability is A Good Thing
Hmm - but isn't there any way to have both "the ability to use the full power of the language at parse time" and still be parseable? If we removed just subroutine prototypes rom the language the proof would not hold any more. So the question is is there a more general proof that does not rely on prototypes?
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re^2: Unparseability is A Good Thing
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Aug 23, 2009 at 15:46 UTC | |
Re^2: Unparseability is A Good Thing
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Aug 23, 2009 at 15:53 UTC | |
by Zen (Deacon) on Aug 26, 2009 at 19:51 UTC | |
by blokhead (Monsignor) on Aug 28, 2009 at 14:01 UTC | |
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Aug 27, 2009 at 21:45 UTC | |
by Zen (Deacon) on Aug 28, 2009 at 13:31 UTC | |
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Aug 28, 2009 at 15:38 UTC | |
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Aug 28, 2009 at 14:53 UTC | |
| |
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Aug 26, 2009 at 22:18 UTC | |
by Zen (Deacon) on Aug 27, 2009 at 13:55 UTC | |
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Aug 27, 2009 at 14:12 UTC | |
| |
Re^2: Unparseability is A Good Thing
by blokhead (Monsignor) on Aug 23, 2009 at 15:06 UTC |
In Section
Meditations