Newest at the top
| 2025-12-01 21:40:00 +0100 | <ski> | RMSBach : yea, i'm not really much familiar with the phrase, in a colloquial sense, either |
| 2025-12-01 21:39:49 +0100 | <RMSBach> | exa: Prepositions are often confusing without full command of a foreign language. `por` and `para` present problems for English speakers learning English. But point taken. |
| 2025-12-01 21:37:08 +0100 | <[exa]> | RMSBach: tbh for non-english people the meaning of `for` is completely inexplicable in the phrase |
| 2025-12-01 21:36:22 +0100 | <[exa]> | ski: yeah I sometimes use that too if I've got the middle value to write |
| 2025-12-01 21:35:42 +0100 | <RMSBach> | I will admit that if we change the preposition to "with" then the order of the nominal phrases can be switched at least colloquially. |
| 2025-12-01 21:35:09 +0100 | <ski> | [exa] : mayhaps ⌜{x ≤ < y}⌝, or something along those lines .. |
| 2025-12-01 21:33:42 +0100 | <RMSBach> | <ski> I won't fault anyone for needing a moment to think about it, but it follows standard English, ex "substitute cornstarch for AP flower if necessary" |
| 2025-12-01 21:33:28 +0100 | <ski> | mm |
| 2025-12-01 21:33:14 +0100 | <EvanR> | maybe the issue is with english |
| 2025-12-01 21:33:04 +0100 | <EvanR> | substitute x, does this phrase mean x is going in, or being replaced |
| 2025-12-01 21:32:47 +0100 | <ski> | (my immediate reading, when first encountering it, was the opposite reading of the intended one) |
| 2025-12-01 21:32:27 +0100 | <[exa]> | what's the better way to write [x,y) interval btw? (I thought that one is pretty much standard) |
| 2025-12-01 21:31:40 +0100 | <ski> | for a long time i had to second-think, reminding myself that `y' was being replaced by `x', rather than the other way around, in that "substitute .. for .. in .." phrase |
| 2025-12-01 21:31:29 +0100 | peterbecich | (~Thunderbi@172.222.148.214) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) |
| 2025-12-01 21:31:21 +0100 | <[exa]> | if someone's syntax looks like a stupid joke in #haskell, you know there's an issue |
| 2025-12-01 21:30:38 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | EvanR: actually a graphing library gave me that at some point, and I spent multiple minutes thinking that there must be a bug in the legend creation before I figured out what they were trying to tell me |
| 2025-12-01 21:29:59 +0100 | <RMSBach> | That phrase sounds pretty normal to me. It is at least more immediately obvious than the notation under discussion. |
| 2025-12-01 21:29:58 +0100 | <ski> | both look quite ugly, to me |
| 2025-12-01 21:29:58 +0100 | <EvanR> | [x,y[ looks insane |
| 2025-12-01 21:29:42 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | makes me think of the notation for (half)-open intervals [x,y[, as opposed to the (to me) more usual [x,y) |
| 2025-12-01 21:27:19 +0100 | dhil | (~dhil@5.151.29.137) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) |
| 2025-12-01 21:24:47 +0100 | skum | (~skum@user/skum) skum |
| 2025-12-01 21:23:39 +0100 | <[exa]> | [x/y] ~~flip~~> ]y/x[ ...intuitive! |
| 2025-12-01 21:22:23 +0100 | <ski> | the phrase "substitute `x' for `y' in `...'" always sounded a bit awkward, to me |
| 2025-12-01 21:20:19 +0100 | <ski> | [y x * /] |
| 2025-12-01 21:19:56 +0100 | <EvanR> | now we have the other notation almost |
| 2025-12-01 21:19:32 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | ah right |
| 2025-12-01 21:19:25 +0100 | <EvanR> | [y / x *] |
| 2025-12-01 21:19:24 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | [x*y/]? |
| 2025-12-01 21:19:10 +0100 | <EvanR> | use reverse polish obv |
| 2025-12-01 21:19:00 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | (/s) |
| 2025-12-01 21:18:53 +0100 | <EvanR> | lol |
| 2025-12-01 21:18:49 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | no, clearly that's dividing by _both_ y and x |
| 2025-12-01 21:18:35 +0100 | <mauke> | then they should have written [/y*x] |
| 2025-12-01 21:18:30 +0100 | <EvanR> | "interesting" |
| 2025-12-01 21:18:24 +0100 | <ski> | ah, tomsmeding said |
| 2025-12-01 21:18:10 +0100 | <EvanR> | yes I saw that just now |
| 2025-12-01 21:17:47 +0100 | <ski> | EvanR : the idea with `[x/y]' is that `y' is "divided away" and `x' is "multiplied in", in its place(s) |
| 2025-12-01 21:17:14 +0100 | <chromoblob> | >:( |
| 2025-12-01 21:15:46 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | it's best-effort anyway |
| 2025-12-01 21:15:36 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | and probably impossible |
| 2025-12-01 21:15:30 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | which I do _not_ want to do because that's a hell of a job |
| 2025-12-01 21:15:24 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | also, if I'd be listed, I would feel the responsibility to make sure that the syntax file is actually correct |
| 2025-12-01 21:14:56 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | people who write fmap ` fmap ` fmap can just do that in some other editor |
| 2025-12-01 21:14:45 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | if I was, I'm not sure I would have passed that change |
| 2025-12-01 21:14:37 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | like, yes I use vim heavily and I write lots of haskell, but no I would not particularly like to be listed as maintainer of the haskell syntax file lol |
| 2025-12-01 21:14:08 +0100 | <[exa]> | tomsmeding: anyway yeah that PR was full of surprise |
| 2025-12-01 21:13:49 +0100 | <EvanR> | also that |
| 2025-12-01 21:13:45 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | EvanR: no it's because the notation is bad |
| 2025-12-01 21:13:40 +0100 | <EvanR> | it's like... x and y |