Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Look up tables in TE

@(a,@(b,c))

Not much to them. Convolution is linear over the dot:
@(A,(B.C)) = @(A,B).A(A,C))

So, a look up table works in batch mode or incremental mode, depending upon how events are matched to micro-actions, and the level of intelligence in the statement.

Is convolution linear over the comma? Sure, in the coma's canonical form. But when I dumped the parenthesis, I made the pointer independent of any link code, hence gained some expressive power. The extra 'bounding' capability, lets me make the first element special, and argument pattern over the remaining set elements. So, linearity won't hold. That's a gain, we need linearity over one link type, not both, I think, to preserve our Turing completeness.

Speaking of wild keys, can we do this?

*=5.(key1,key2,.,.).*--.* > 0)

Enter that one in the typeface explosion contest of the year. But the semantics? The wild key can stand for anything in TE, this works. But this implies that arithmetic on keys is the tightest binder, .*-- = .(*--) This may mean triggered events, but it really means the syntax is getting buried deeper into sqlite3 over time.

Arithmetic, variable operations and attributes, what do they have in common? They all mean, compute this now using a key cast, compute using the key value interpreted properly. So we byte the bullet on this, our goal being to bury the most common casting methods deep into the machine, make it do operations in string format, make a digital circuit even.

Don't forget the default bounding operation lets us ship around any script, including TE or other triple based script:
_(*=9,*--,*>0), that's right, drop this little gem onto the result, and let it spin around somewhere counting down. The default operator over a bound domain is a quote character! Do we get this: _=4,_--.(_>0)(*)(Multiply quoted) Notice the implied inheritance, the wild card assumes the _ overload, the parenthesis must bind to the _, in the prior key word operation.

I would think grammar geeks would be going crazy right now, thinking about matches and sql micro code, no??

No comments: