By the way, don’t make the mistake of concluding that non-collapsibility is undesirable. Non-collapsibility means that the conditional ratio is different from the marginal (unadjusted) ratio even in the complete absence of confounding (as in our example dataset below). The underlying issue is the non-collapsibility of ORs and HRs. How much can a Clojure developer do alone?
#MR. PREPPER HYDROGEN CODE#
Instead, one can use a single key stroke that means “evaluate the form under the cursor”, or “evaluate the form before the cursor”, etc, to precisely define the scope and send the code at the same time. The benefit of a form, is that one no longer needs to use a mouse or some awkward key combinations to painstakingly select a region of code first, before sending it out for evaluation. So, when next time someone insists that their favorite non-Lisp language also has a REPL, ask them, does it have a notion of “form”? There’s a notion of “form” in Lisp, that is the code enclosed between a pair of parentheses, which can be independently evaluated. Note also, a very important point that people often miss, is that this “sending code to evaluate” is uniquely convenient in Lisp because of the parentheses. Note that one normally sends the code to evaluate with a single key stroke. Obviously, this requires some upfront setup, but a proper Clojure REPL setup exists in all major editors. Once the code is evaluated, the results immediately show up in the editor, so you get the feedback right away. However, one sends the code to evaluate in a REPL, which may not even be visible at all. “Using the REPL” actually means typing your code in your favorite editor. Past and Present of Haskell: Interview with Simon Peyton Jones It’s not what type families and data families were originally intended for, you can use them for all sorts of things, but it’s a major application within GHC, and it’s pushed a sort of stylistic change through the compiler. We use both type families and data families quite extensively to power the trees that grow idea. So, at first, we had a tree that was just GHC specific, but then we realized increasingly that other people would like to parse Haskell themselves for other purposes, so what we really wanted was a sort of base library that contained the core abstract syntax tree with its dozens of data types and hundreds of constructors and then some way for GHC to customize that tree, to add all its decorations and that’s the trees that grow idea and that lives off type families.
Haskell has a very large concrete syntax and so, correspondingly, has a large abstract syntax, that is the internal data type that describes Haskell programs after you’ve passed them has dozens of data types and hundreds of constructors and GHC then, during its renaming and type checking phase, decorates this tree with lots of additional stuff: types and scopes, and all sorts of extra stuff get gets added onto the tree. This is really useful for Haskell’s abstract syntax tree. Now, trees that grow, you can search for that keyword as a paper on my homepage about it, is a way to make sort of extensible data types using Haskell. (…) the biggest stylistic change that’s happened in GHC recently, I think, is the move towards this “trees that grow” idea.
0 kommentar(er)
