what do you call funct ( funct())

Discussion in 'Perl Misc' started by Ken Sington, Jul 8, 2004.

  1. Ken Sington

    Ken Sington Guest

    ok it works, but what do you call this:

    the eq test in this ternary op.
    $answer = $test eq "value" ? "true" : "false";

    or

    the function in this if:
    if ( myFnct("blah") ){
    # it works
    }




    or


    the uc($a) in the split. or squeezing all that inside
    the sort

    @temp = sort {
    my $aa=(split '\|',uc($a), $colW)[$colZ];
    my $bb=(split '\|',uc($b), $colW)[$colZ];
    $aa=~ s/\W+//g;
    $bb=~ s/\W+//g;
    $aa cmp $bb;
    } @db;
    Ken Sington, Jul 8, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ken Sington wrote:
    > ok it works,


    Excuse me, but exactly *what* is it that works? You may not have
    noticed, but there are more than one thread going on in this group...

    > but what do you call this:


    <various code snippets out of context snipped>

    --
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson
    Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson, Jul 8, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ken Sington

    Brad Baxter Guest

    On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Ken Sington wrote:

    > ok it works, but what do you call this:
    >
    > the eq test in this ternary op.
    > $answer = $test eq "value" ? "true" : "false";


    A test for equality.


    > or
    >
    > the function in this if:
    > if ( myFnct("blah") ){
    > # it works
    > }


    A function call.


    > or
    >
    >
    > the uc($a) in the split.


    A builtin function call.


    > [ ... ] or squeezing all that inside
    > the sort


    A code block.


    > @temp = sort {
    > my $aa=(split '\|',uc($a), $colW)[$colZ];
    > my $bb=(split '\|',uc($b), $colW)[$colZ];
    > $aa=~ s/\W+//g;
    > $bb=~ s/\W+//g;
    > $aa cmp $bb;
    > } @db;



    But what are you asking?

    Regards,

    Brad
    Brad Baxter, Jul 8, 2004
    #3
  4. Ken Sington

    Ken Sington Guest

    Brad Baxter wrote:

    > On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Ken Sington wrote:
    >

    ....
    >
    > But what are you asking?
    >


    I mean, the fact that you can run a function inside that ternary, inside
    that if. the fact that you can run a function inside a control structure.

    is there a name for the concept?
    If I wanted to explain to someone that you can do those things, what would I call this topic?

    > Regards,
    >
    > Brad
    Ken Sington, Jul 8, 2004
    #4
  5. Ken Sington wrote:
    > Brad Baxter wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Ken Sington wrote:
    >>

    > ...
    >
    >>
    >> But what are you asking?
    >>

    >
    > I mean, the fact that you can run a function inside that ternary, inside
    > that if. the fact that you can run a function inside a control structure.
    >
    > is there a name for the concept?
    > If I wanted to explain to someone that you can do those things, what
    > would I call this topic?


    orthogonality?

    This means that there are rules that describe what you can do and there
    are very few (down to "no") exceptions to these rules.
    Like: "a function can return a value and this value can be used in an
    expression" and "the condition of a conditional operator is an expression".
    --
    Josef Möllers (Pinguinpfleger bei FSC)
    If failure had no penalty success would not be a prize
    -- T. Pratchett
    Josef Moellers, Jul 8, 2004
    #5
  6. Ken Sington (ken_sington@nospam_abcdefg.com) wrote:
    : Brad Baxter wrote:

    : > On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Ken Sington wrote:
    : >
    : ...
    : >
    : > But what are you asking?
    : >

    : I mean, the fact that you can run a function inside that ternary, inside
    : that if. the fact that you can run a function inside a control structure.

    : is there a name for the concept? : If I wanted to explain to someone
    that you can do those things, what would I call this topic?

    perhaps you want words like

    grammar

    syntax

    semantics

    expressions

    operators

    operator precedence

    LL(1) LALR(1) (and some other similar acronyms)

    parsers
    Malcolm Dew-Jones, Jul 8, 2004
    #6
  7. Ken Sington

    gnari Guest

    "Ken Sington" <ken_sington@nospam_abcdefg.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Brad Baxter wrote:
    >
    > > On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Ken Sington wrote:
    > >

    > ...
    > >
    > > But what are you asking?
    > >

    >
    > I mean, the fact that you can run a function inside that ternary, inside
    > that if. the fact that you can run a function inside a control structure.
    >
    > is there a name for the concept?
    > If I wanted to explain to someone that you can do those things, what would

    I call this topic?

    you are thinking on expressions.

    the if() test is a boolean expression. funtion calls are allowed
    in expressions. some languages differentiate between procedures and
    functions. the difference is that the functions return a value and
    can thus be used in expressions.

    gnari
    gnari, Jul 8, 2004
    #7
  8. Ken Sington

    Ken Sington Guest

    Josef Moellers wrote:
    > Ken Sington wrote:

    ....

    ....

    >
    > orthogonality?
    >

    I almost dismissed it. never knew there was such a word.

    I looked it up in the dictionary:
    ...sum of two products...

    then google.com, and found lots of references to mathmatics.

    then passed it around to my peers; almost no one had a clue.
    the one who had a clue once again steered towards mathmatics.
    and of course, to comp.sci.



    > This means that there are rules that describe what you can do and there
    > are very few (down to "no") exceptions to these rules.
    > Like: "a function can return a value and this value can be used in an
    > expression" and "the condition of a conditional operator is an expression".
    Ken Sington, Jul 9, 2004
    #8
  9. Ken Sington wrote:
    > Josef Moellers wrote:
    >
    >> Ken Sington wrote:

    >
    > ...
    >
    > ...
    >
    >>
    >> orthogonality?
    >>

    > I almost dismissed it. never knew there was such a word.
    >
    > I looked it up in the dictionary:
    > ...sum of two products...
    >
    > then google.com, and found lots of references to mathmatics.


    Yes, in mathematics I'd read it as being "at right angles" or whatever
    linear algebra makes out of that. It then also bears the notion of two
    vectors being independent of each other so they span a plane where you
    can construct points out of both vectors independently, which probably
    led to the adoption of this term in CS:

    >> This means that there are rules that describe what you can do and
    >> there are very few (down to "no") exceptions to these rules.
    >> Like: "a function can return a value and this value can be used in an
    >> expression" and "the condition of a conditional operator is an
    >> expression".


    I.e. what you can construct an expression of is one vector and what you
    can put into a condition is another.

    I've seen this term used very often in describing the architecture of
    processors. There it e.g. refers to the addressing modes where some
    processors allow arbitrary sources and destinations (e.g. PDP11, VAX,
    M68K, NS32K) while others just allow certain combinations only.
    The former call themselves "orthogonal".
    --
    Josef Möllers (Pinguinpfleger bei FSC)
    If failure had no penalty success would not be a prize
    -- T. Pratchett
    Josef Moellers, Jul 9, 2004
    #9
  10. >>>>> "JM" == Josef Moellers <> writes:

    JM> Ken Sington wrote:
    >> Josef Moellers wrote:
    >>> Ken Sington wrote:

    >> ... ...
    >>
    >>> orthogonality?
    >>>

    >> I almost dismissed it. never knew there was such a word. I
    >> looked it up in the dictionary: ...sum of two products... then
    >> google.com, and found lots of references to mathmatics.


    JM> Yes, in mathematics I'd read it as being "at right angles" or
    JM> whatever linear algebra makes out of that.

    "at right angles" is a fair description. The most technical
    definition is that the inner product (dot product) of two vectors
    is zero.

    And since inner product and vector have very broad definitions so
    to can orthogonality. For example:

    If f,g are real-valued functions over the reals (i.e. f:R->R
    g:R->R).

    We can defined the inner product:

    <f,g>=\int_R f(x)g(x) dx where \int_R is the integral over all
    real numbers that is from -infinity to infinity.

    So that f,g are orthogonal if <f,g>=0.



    JM> It then also bears the notion of two vectors being independent
    JM> of each other so they span a plane where you can construct
    JM> points out of both vectors independently, which probably led
    JM> to the adoption of this term in CS:


    Vectors needn't be orthogonal to be linearly independent. For
    example (0,1) and (1,1) are linearly independent and span the
    plane but are not orthogonal, <(0,1),(1,1)>=1!=0.

    This is all WAY off topic and further discussion should be moved
    to sci.math.

    --
    Dale Henderson

    "Imaginary universes are so much more beautiful than this stupidly-
    constructed 'real' one..." -- G. H. Hardy
    Dale Henderson, Jul 9, 2004
    #10
  11. Ken Sington

    Joe Smith Guest

    Dale Henderson wrote:

    > JM> Yes, in mathematics I'd read it as being "at right angles" or
    > JM> whatever linear algebra makes out of that.
    >
    > "at right angles" is a fair description. The most technical ...


    Dale,
    Whenever I see one of your postings, it takes more brain power to
    parse, since you don't put your text at the left margin like everybody
    else does. Is there a particular reason why you use this non-standard
    style?
    -Joe
    Joe Smith, Jul 10, 2004
    #11
  12. Dale Henderson wrote:
    >>>>>>"JM" == Josef Moellers <> writes:


    > JM> It then also bears the notion of two vectors being independent
    > JM> of each other so they span a plane where you can construct
    > JM> points out of both vectors independently, which probably led
    > JM> to the adoption of this term in CS:
    >
    >
    > Vectors needn't be orthogonal to be linearly independent. For
    > example (0,1) and (1,1) are linearly independent and span the
    > plane but are not orthogonal, <(0,1),(1,1)>=1!=0.


    As I'm already known to be a pedant and trying to show off:
    I was using an implication:

    "at right angles" -> "linearly independency"

    > This is all WAY off topic and further discussion should be moved
    > to sci.math.


    I don't really want to discuss this particular subject.

    <EOD>
    --
    Josef Möllers (Pinguinpfleger bei FSC)
    If failure had no penalty success would not be a prize
    -- T. Pratchett
    Josef Moellers, Jul 12, 2004
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Doris Cox
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    543
    Doris Cox
    Dec 2, 2003
  2. Dennis
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    690
    Dennis
    Dec 2, 2003
  3. Dennis
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    447
    Dennis
    Dec 2, 2003
  4. pek
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,175
  5. johannes falcone
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    991
    johannes falcone
    May 16, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page