Newest at the top
| 2026-03-16 01:04:45 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
| 2026-03-16 01:01:45 +0100 | st_aldini | (~Betterbir@136.48.46.187) st_aldini |
| 2026-03-16 01:00:23 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-03-16 00:56:41 +0100 | wickedjargon | (~user@S0106ac17c8c20e24.vc.shawcable.net) wickedjargon |
| 2026-03-16 00:50:47 +0100 | bitdex | (~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex) (Ping timeout: 258 seconds) |
| 2026-03-16 00:49:30 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) |
| 2026-03-16 00:44:53 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-03-16 00:35:50 +0100 | gabiruh | (~gabiruh@vps19177.publiccloud.com.br) gabiruh |
| 2026-03-16 00:35:22 +0100 | gabiruh | (~gabiruh@vps19177.publiccloud.com.br) (Quit: ZNC 1.7.5 - https://znc.in) |
| 2026-03-16 00:34:00 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2026-03-16 00:29:31 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-03-16 00:26:37 +0100 | xff0x | (~xff0x@2405:6580:b080:900:e24f:1ef:ed48:3e20) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2026-03-16 00:25:15 +0100 | xff0x_ | (~xff0x@2405:6580:b080:900:1fdc:c04d:3012:9e4) |
| 2026-03-16 00:22:16 +0100 | Guest24 | (~Guest24@94.42.242.59) |
| 2026-03-16 00:20:32 +0100 | dolio | (~dolio@130.44.140.168) dolio |
| 2026-03-16 00:18:10 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
| 2026-03-16 00:14:02 +0100 | dolio | (~dolio@130.44.140.168) (Quit: ZNC 1.10.1 - https://znc.in) |
| 2026-03-16 00:11:29 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-03-16 00:09:53 +0100 | <jreicher> | And easily understandable bells and whistles, which is why it might be a good example. |
| 2026-03-16 00:09:36 +0100 | <monochrom> | PN is then just bells and whistles dressing up that stack API. |
| 2026-03-16 00:09:29 +0100 | <jreicher> | Yep, I got you. :) Phew. And I agree, that's nice. |
| 2026-03-16 00:09:08 +0100 | <monochrom> | The basic amortization example is a stack whose API has push, pop, multipop(n). multipop(n) worst case time is Ω(n), but amortized time stays O(1). |
| 2026-03-16 00:08:45 +0100 | <jreicher> | Do you mean the question induced is what is the amortized time? |
| 2026-03-16 00:07:17 +0100 | <jreicher> | I'm missing something that's probably obvious, sorry. :) I think I need you to spell it out. |
| 2026-03-16 00:06:48 +0100 | <monochrom> | PN. |
| 2026-03-16 00:06:43 +0100 | <jreicher> | You mean RPN can be amortized and PN can't? |
| 2026-03-16 00:05:49 +0100 | <monochrom> | A single input symbol may trigger an unbounded number of stack pops. This is a great recipe for disaster^W intresting amortized time! |
| 2026-03-16 00:05:38 +0100 | st_aldini | (~Betterbir@136.48.46.187) (Quit: st_aldini) |
| 2026-03-16 00:04:52 +0100 | <EvanR> | PN becomes more efficient if your code uses right to left language |
| 2026-03-16 00:04:35 +0100 | <jreicher> | Not following, and I want to! |
| 2026-03-16 00:03:17 +0100 | <monochrom> | Nice, so PN induces a great question for amortized time! |
| 2026-03-16 00:00:47 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2026-03-15 23:56:06 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-03-15 23:56:04 +0100 | euphores | (~SASL_euph@user/euphores) euphores |
| 2026-03-15 23:49:31 +0100 | euphores | (~SASL_euph@user/euphores) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2026-03-15 23:45:19 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2026-03-15 23:42:31 +0100 | craunts795335385 | (~craunts@152.32.99.2) (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) |
| 2026-03-15 23:40:43 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-03-15 23:37:19 +0100 | craunts795335385 | (~craunts@152.32.99.2) |
| 2026-03-15 23:32:09 +0100 | <Rembane> | Also, stacks are neat! |
| 2026-03-15 23:30:19 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2026-03-15 23:30:00 +0100 | <EvanR> | I guess it's simple enough there's not much room for philosophizing |
| 2026-03-15 23:29:23 +0100 | <EvanR> | ok a calculator based on RPN is like a combination of programming language and UI in one |
| 2026-03-15 23:26:49 +0100 | <jreicher> | I know. But I'm asking why RPN is a preferred example for an "implementation of something". I think the nature of that question mixes things, necessarily. |
| 2026-03-15 23:26:36 +0100 | <EvanR> | with the bridge being a compiler as usual |
| 2026-03-15 23:26:17 +0100 | <EvanR> | syntax vs (operational) semantics |
| 2026-03-15 23:26:05 +0100 | <EvanR> | this sounds very mixing up levels of abstraction. RPN is a notation not an implementation backend |
| 2026-03-15 23:25:36 +0100 | <jreicher> | Yes, with the (predictable?) observation that only postfix can be streamed. |
| 2026-03-15 23:25:21 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-03-15 23:25:10 +0100 | weary-traveler | (~user@user/user363627) user363627 |