tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5336273.post18647711116236155..comments2023-08-23T21:56:42.999+09:00Comments on A++ [Eric Torreborre's Blog]: Coming full circleUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5336273.post-91234657187315838392012-10-17T07:03:57.671+09:002012-10-17T07:03:57.671+09:00Edwin, somehow your comment ended-up on the wrong ...Edwin, somehow your comment ended-up on the wrong post but that's a good catch, I fixed that line, thanks!Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16484514586929815703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5336273.post-56967909886787563512012-10-16T21:19:44.699+09:002012-10-16T21:19:44.699+09:00I enjoyed reading the article. There is a slight m...I enjoyed reading the article. There is a slight mistake in the proof in the section <i>coinductive proofs</i>. The third line of the proof should be:<br /><br />= comap f (x <> iterate f (f x))Edwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08146771497863900167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5336273.post-25435967646507521212012-03-23T08:10:38.378+09:002012-03-23T08:10:38.378+09:00@adam yes other people like that style pretty much...@adam yes other people like that style pretty much too. <br /><br />This was a nice discovery for me that we could use Scala constructs instead of magic to do scoping (in exchange for a few more keystrokes).Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16484514586929815703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5336273.post-33529986932584937242012-03-23T08:08:11.794+09:002012-03-23T08:08:11.794+09:00@missingfaktor I don't think so. The problem i...@missingfaktor I don't think so. The problem is that each example is a statement, completely unrelated to the rest:<br /><br /> "example 1" in { ... }<br /> "example 2" in { ... } <br /><br />Since macros are method calls, they will still have to be related in a way.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16484514586929815703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5336273.post-25252081801006582682012-03-23T04:37:37.554+09:002012-03-23T04:37:37.554+09:00At first I hated the immutable spec style, but now...At first I hated the immutable spec style, but now I've come to the conclusion that the discipline it enforces makes the tests clearer and more correct. I find the mixing of before and after actions in the mutable style error-prone. Want scoping? It's called 'new'. No need for extra stuff.Adam Rosienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06590504956582245789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5336273.post-81112657617019928902012-03-23T04:03:19.535+09:002012-03-23T04:03:19.535+09:00Interesting read. A question: With macros, would i...Interesting read. A question: With macros, would it be possible to provide the same features and similar syntax without having to resort to mutation?Zimbabwe vgtjbkjkijhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10950240139175717925noreply@blogger.com