Forwarded from Deleted Account
Python 还没有 lambda 表达式的时候，所用的
def fn: ...def local_fn: return local_fn 的那种方式Forwarded from Deleted Account
是一种闭包，因为可以访问 定义作用域的变量
lift 到底是什么含义？为什么会和子程序/作用域有关？
lift 到底是什么含义？为什么会和子程序/作用域有关？
Forwarded from Deleted Account
Problem: This is because Python's scoping rules are demented. The presence of the += assignment operator marks the target, num_converted, as local to the enclosing function's scope, and there is no sound way in Python 2.x to access just one scoping level out from there. Only the global keyword can lift variable references out of the current scope, and it takes you straight to the top.
Forwarded from Deleted Account
如果说返回一个闭包是 lambda lifting……
这里的 "lift" 是不是在 定义顺序上 将
这里的 "lift" 是不是在 定义顺序上 将
return lambda: 变成 def some_fun: ...def __call__: 的那种 "lift"？Forwarded from Deleted Account
https://www.minizinc.org/doc-2.4.2/en/predicates.html
Clearly, the intention of the modeller is that x=3, y=0 should be a solution. This requires the compiler to take care not to “lift” the constraint x=y*y out of the context of the function, because that would prevent it from finding any solution with x=3. You can verify that the set of solutions contains x=3, y=0 as well as the expected x=1, y=1, x=4, y=2 and x=9, y=3.
https://combinatorylogic.github.io/mbase-docs/lang0.html#lifting
Lambda lifting pass will turn all the nested lambda functions into toplevel definitions, capturing closure environments where necessary. We did the lexical scoping pass previously, and now all the names inside any given context are unique, which makes it easy to produce lists of externally defined variables used under each lambda context.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/golang-dev/JAgv8kBTgk4
Can I rely on finalizers on pointers to local variables? If so, should the documentation be updated? If not, is it reasonable to lift the restriction in general in the future? How?
https://github.com/latex3/latex3/issues/410
Presumably we have to wait for the lock to lift,
Clearly, the intention of the modeller is that x=3, y=0 should be a solution. This requires the compiler to take care not to “lift” the constraint x=y*y out of the context of the function, because that would prevent it from finding any solution with x=3. You can verify that the set of solutions contains x=3, y=0 as well as the expected x=1, y=1, x=4, y=2 and x=9, y=3.
https://combinatorylogic.github.io/mbase-docs/lang0.html#lifting
Lambda lifting pass will turn all the nested lambda functions into toplevel definitions, capturing closure environments where necessary. We did the lexical scoping pass previously, and now all the names inside any given context are unique, which makes it easy to produce lists of externally defined variables used under each lambda context.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/golang-dev/JAgv8kBTgk4
Can I rely on finalizers on pointers to local variables? If so, should the documentation be updated? If not, is it reasonable to lift the restriction in general in the future? How?
https://github.com/latex3/latex3/issues/410
Presumably we have to wait for the lock to lift,
Forwarded from Deleted Account
原来 Lambda lifting 和 anonymous subclass 是一个思想啊，给 lambda 一个更广的作用域
Lambda lifting pass will turn all the nested lambda functions into toplevel definitions
代码可以复用、captured external value 很容易进 lexical scope
Lambda lifting pass will turn all the nested lambda functions into toplevel definitions
代码可以复用、captured external value 很容易进 lexical scope
关于 ParserKt，已经知道 ConstantPattern 不是 OptionalPattern，但是不确定 OptionalPattern 是否属于 ConstantPatternKind