gmane.comp.lang.concatenative archive

1298 archived articles, newest first (page 5 of 13). Latest articles →

Re: [stack] proof/examples of productivety increase ?
Mon, 27 Apr 2009 08:59:11 -0700
William Tanksley <[email protected]> • #3386
Re: [stack] proof/examples of productivety increase ?
Mon, 27 Apr 2009 04:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
Nigel Galloway <[email protected]> • #3385
[stack] proof/examples of productivety increase ?
Sun, 12 Apr 2009 18:42:54 +0300
chris glur <[email protected]> • #3383
Re: [stack] Re: Motivations to embrace undecidable type systems
Mon, 6 Apr 2009 08:00:38 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3382
[stack] Re: Compression: Huffman Coding with Joy
Sun, 05 Apr 2009 12:40:24 -0000
"icpdesign" <[email protected]> • #3381
[stack] Compression: Huffman Coding with Joy
Sun, 05 Apr 2009 12:34:56 -0000
"icpdesign" <[email protected]> • #3380
[stack] Re: Motivations to embrace undecidable type systems
Sun, 05 Apr 2009 09:09:21 -0000
"hallucious" <[email protected]> • #3379
Re: [stack] Re: Motivations to embrace undecidable type systems
Sun, 5 Apr 2009 02:27:11 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3378
Re: [stack] Motivations to embrace decidable type systems
Sun, 5 Apr 2009 02:15:21 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3377
[stack] Re: Motivations to embrace undecidable type systems
Sun, 05 Apr 2009 01:41:42 -0000
"hallucious" <[email protected]> • #3376
[stack] Motivations to embrace undecidable type systems
Sun, 05 Apr 2009 01:14:17 -0000
"hallucious" <[email protected]> • #3375
[stack] Motivations to embrace decidable type systems
Sun, 05 Apr 2009 01:01:30 -0000
"hallucious" <[email protected]> • #3374
Re: [stack] Type for row based languages
Sat, 4 Apr 2009 19:08:32 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3373
Re: [stack] Type for row based languages
Sat, 4 Apr 2009 18:54:54 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3372
[stack] Type for row based languages
Sat, 04 Apr 2009 21:27:20 -0000
"hallucious" <[email protected]> • #3371
Re: [stack] stOck
Sat, 4 Apr 2009 06:19:43 +0300
chris glur <[email protected]> • #3370
[stack] seaforth dead, colorforth.com updated
Fri, 3 Apr 2009 05:07:28 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3369
Re: [stack] stOck
Thu, 2 Apr 2009 04:55:40 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3368
Re: [stack] stOck
Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:40:35 +0200
spir <[email protected]> • #3367
Re: [stack] stOck
Thu, 2 Apr 2009 00:50:45 +0300
chris glur <[email protected]> • #3366
Re: [stack] stOck
Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:56:16 -0700
William Tanksley <[email protected]> • #3365
Re: [stack] stOck
Wed, 1 Apr 2009 08:02:19 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3364
Re: [stack] Re: Joy and code readability
Wed, 1 Apr 2009 07:58:55 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3363
Re: [stack] stOck
Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:33:24 +0300
chris glur <[email protected]> • #3362
[stack] Re: Joy and code readability
Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:25:20 -0000
"fabio_cevasco" <[email protected]> • #3361
Re: [stack] Joy and code readability
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:40:50 -0700
William Tanksley <[email protected]> • #3360
Re: [stack] Joy and code readability
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 08:27:53 -0400
John Cowan <[email protected]> • #3359
[stack] Joy and code readability
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:37:59 -0000
"fabio_cevasco" <[email protected]> • #3358
Re: [stack] Advantages of cat, joy ..?
Tue, 24 Mar 2009 02:01:50 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3357
Re: [stack] Advantages of cat, joy ..?
Tue, 24 Mar 2009 01:57:05 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3356
Re: [stack] list issues
Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:39:49 -0700
William Tanksley <[email protected]> • #3355
Re: [stack] Advantages of cat, joy ..?
Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:29:09 -0700
William Tanksley <[email protected]> • #3354
Re: [stack] Advantages of cat, joy ..?
Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:39:00 -0700
William Tanksley <[email protected]> • #3353
[stack] list issues
Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:21:28 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3352
Re: [stack] Advantages of cat, joy ..?
Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:47:53 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3351
Re: [stack] Advantages of cat, joy ..?
Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:55:23 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3350
Re: [stack] Advantages of cat, joy ..?
Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:44:39 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3349
Re: [stack] Advantages of cat, joy ..?
Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:42:27 -0400
John Cowan <[email protected]> • #3348
Re: [stack] Advantages of cat, joy ..?
Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:03:16 -0700
William Tanksley <[email protected]> • #3347
Re: [stack] Advantages of cat, joy ..?
Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:42:06 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3346
Re: [stack] Advantages of cat, joy ..?
Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:23:00 -0400
John Cowan <[email protected]> • #3345
Re: [stack] Advantages of cat, joy ..?
Sat, 21 Mar 2009 11:45:40 -0700
William Tanksley <[email protected]> • #3344
Re: [stack] FL versus Joy
Fri, 20 Mar 2009 06:52:51 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3343
[stack] FL versus Joy
Fri, 20 Mar 2009 06:21:15 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3342
Re: [stack] stOck
Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:43:45 -0700
William Tanksley <[email protected]> • #3341
[stack] A variant of XY and F written in C++
Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:41:29 +1300
Chris Double <[email protected]> • #3340
Re: [stack] lambda the ultimate: advantages of pointfree?
Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:18:07 -0500
Stevan Apter <[email protected]> • #3339
Re: [stack] lambda the ultimate: advantages of pointfree?
Sun, 15 Mar 2009 08:25:39 -0700
William Tanksley <[email protected]> • #3338
Re: [stack] lambda the ultimate: advantages of pointfree?
Sun, 15 Mar 2009 09:19:41 -0500
Stevan Apter <[email protected]> • #3337
Re: [stack] lambda the ultimate: advantages of pointfree?
Sun, 15 Mar 2009 01:18:25 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3336
[stack] a nice introduction to SQUIGOL
Fri, 13 Mar 2009 04:49:50 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3335
[stack] lambda the ultimate: advantages of pointfree?
Fri, 13 Mar 2009 03:16:11 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3334
Re: [stack] Lojban (was: Advantages of cat, joy ..?)
Fri, 13 Mar 2009 05:27:17 +0300
eas lab <[email protected]> • #3333
Re: [stack] recursion is too hard
Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:07:27 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3332
Re: [stack] recursion is too hard
Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:09:05 -0700
William Tanksley <[email protected]> • #3331
Re: [stack] recursion is too hard
Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:54:46 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3330
Re: [stack] recursion is too hard
Thu, 12 Mar 2009 08:05:01 -0700
William Tanksley <[email protected]> • #3329
Re: [stack] recursion is too hard
Thu, 12 Mar 2009 05:48:48 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3328
Re: [stack] recursion is too hard
Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:32:03 +1300
Chris Double <[email protected]> • #3327
Re: [stack] recursion is too hard
Thu, 12 Mar 2009 05:18:44 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3326
Re: [stack] recursion is too hard
Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:04:48 +1300
Chris Double <[email protected]> • #3325
Re: [stack] recursion is too hard
Thu, 12 Mar 2009 02:35:19 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3324
Re: [stack] stOck
Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:53:42 +0100
spir <[email protected]> • #3323
Re: [stack] stOck
Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:22:55 -0700
William Tanksley <[email protected]> • #3322
Re: [stack] stOck
Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:12:59 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3321
Re: [stack] stOck
Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:54:45 +0100
spir <[email protected]> • #3320
[stack] Re: stOck
Wed, 11 Mar 2009 05:29:25 -0000
"Justin Pombrio" <[email protected]> • #3319
Re: [stack] stOck
Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:23:03 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3318
Re: [stack] stOck
Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:21:36 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3317
Re: [stack] stOck
Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:01:35 +0100
spir <[email protected]> • #3316
Re: [stack] stOck
Tue, 10 Mar 2009 08:10:32 -0700
William Tanksley <[email protected]> • #3315
[stack] stOck
Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:58:20 +0100
spir <[email protected]> • #3314
Re: [stack] recursion is too hard
Mon, 9 Mar 2009 18:44:41 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3313
Re: [stack] recursion is too hard
Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:06:19 -0700
William Tanksley <[email protected]> • #3312
Re: [stack] recursion is too hard
Mon, 9 Mar 2009 17:56:48 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3311
[stack] recursion is too hard
Mon, 9 Mar 2009 17:41:31 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3310
Re: [stack] unary functions from X to Y?
Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:16:24 -0500
Stevan Apter <[email protected]> • #3309
Re: [stack] unary functions from X to Y?
Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:53:29 -0500
Stevan Apter <[email protected]> • #3308
Re: [stack] unary functions from X to Y?
Mon, 09 Mar 2009 10:48:31 -0500
Stevan Apter <[email protected]> • #3307
Re: [stack] Paging Mr Diggins... Linear Logic and Permutation Stacks.
Sun, 8 Mar 2009 23:33:12 -0400
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3306
Re: [stack] Paging Mr Diggins... Linear Logic and Permutation Stacks.
Sun, 8 Mar 2009 19:39:15 -0700
Don Groves <[email protected]> • #3305
Re: [stack] Paging Mr Diggins... Linear Logic and Permutation Stacks.
Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:30:33 +1300 (NZDT)
John Carter <[email protected]> • #3304
Re: [stack] Paging Mr Diggins... Linear Logic and Permutation Stacks.
Sun, 8 Mar 2009 16:58:23 -0700
Don Groves <[email protected]> • #3303
[stack] Paging Mr Diggins... Linear Logic and Permutation Stacks.
Mon, 09 Mar 2009 12:35:09 +1300 (NZDT)
John Carter <[email protected]> • #3302
Re: [stack] unary functions from X to Y?
Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:23:58 +1300
Chris Double <[email protected]> • #3301
Re: [stack] unary functions from X to Y?
Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:00:29 -0700
William Tanksley <[email protected]> • #3300
Re: [stack] unary functions from X to Y?
Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:58:11 -0700
William Tanksley <[email protected]> • #3299
Re: some thoughts on XY [was Re: [stack] Re: unary functions from X to Y?]
Sun, 8 Mar 2009 18:27:30 +1300
Chris Double <[email protected]> • #3298
Re: some thoughts on XY [was Re: [stack] Re: unary functions from X to Y?]
Sat, 07 Mar 2009 11:21:02 -0500
Stevan Apter <[email protected]> • #3297
some thoughts on XY [was Re: [stack] Re: unary functions from X to Y?]
Sat, 07 Mar 2009 11:14:15 -0500
Stevan Apter <[email protected]> • #3296
Re: [stack] things
Sat, 7 Mar 2009 15:33:19 +0200
eas lab <[email protected]> • #3295
Re: [stack] What does "concatenative" actually mean?
Sat, 7 Mar 2009 06:18:23 -0500
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3294
Re: [stack] What does "concatenative" actually mean?
Sat, 7 Mar 2009 11:48:49 +0100
spir <[email protected]> • #3293
Re: [stack] What does "concatenative" actually mean?
Sat, 7 Mar 2009 04:15:21 -0500
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3292
Re: [stack] What does "concatenative" actually mean?
Sat, 7 Mar 2009 09:51:02 +0100
spir <[email protected]> • #3291
Re: [stack] What does "concatenative" actually mean?
Sat, 7 Mar 2009 03:38:13 -0500
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3290
Re: [stack] What does "concatenative" actually mean?
Sat, 7 Mar 2009 09:32:16 +0100
spir <[email protected]> • #3289
Re: [stack] Re: unary functions from X to Y?
Sat, 7 Mar 2009 20:27:29 +1300
Chris Double <[email protected]> • #3288
Re: [stack] What does "concatenative" actually mean?
Fri, 6 Mar 2009 21:33:25 -0500
John Nowak <[email protected]> • #3287
Re: [stack] What does "concatenative" actually mean?
Fri, 6 Mar 2009 21:13:27 -0500
Christopher Diggins <[email protected]> • #3286
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.