
Boost : 
Subject: Re: [boost] De Bruijn Bind (alternate bind syntax) Interest?
From: David Sankel (camior_at_[hidden])
Date: 20130623 23:43:12
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Larry Evans <cppljevans_at_[hidden]>wrote:
> On 09/02/10 16:08, David Sankel wrote:> 2010/9/2 David Sankel
> <camior_at_[hidden]>
> >
> >> 2010/9/2 Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:57 AM, David Sankel <camior_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hello all,
> >>>>
> >>>> I've been working on an alternate bind syntax based on De Bruijn
> >>>> indices[1].
> >>>> The syntax is very simple, yet the terms are very powerful.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here is an example of a function const that takes in an argument c and
> >>>> returns another function that, for all input, returns c:
> >>>>
> >>>> //Î»x.Î»y.x = Î»Î»1 with De Bruijn indices.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Not according to the page you linked below. What am I missing?
> >>>
> >>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Bruijn_index
> >>>
> >>
> >> Sorry about that. The wikipedia page uses 1indexed indices where I'm
> using
> >> 0indexed indices. So, increment 1 on all my examples to get the
> wikipedia
> >> syntax.
> >>
> >
> > I'm beginning to think it is better to use 1indexing instead of
> 0indexing
> > all around. It will be both compatible with the Wikipedia page and
> familiar
> > to boost bind/lambda users.
> >
> > Funny thing is, I started with 1indexing but changed it to 0indexing
> for
> > the fallacious reasoning of the arrrrgh function that Dave A mentioned.
> >
> Hi David,
>
> I looked at the web page mentioned in your first post to this thread
> and could not understand the flip example:
>
> For flip, I'm introducing subscripts on abstractions (Î») to indicate
> the number of arguments. For the variables (1,2,etc.) I use a
> subscript to indicate which argument of the abstraction it refers
> to.
>
> flip = Î»x.Î»(y,z).x(z,y) = Î»â‚Î»â‚‚1(1â‚, 2â‚€)
>
> which seems to have a 0 for the subscript of 2. and 1 for the
> subscript of 1. That's consistent with the argument indices starting
> at 0 (1â‚ corresponds z {the 2nd argument in the argument list, (z,y)},
> and 2â‚€ corresponds to y {the 1st argument in the argument list,
> (z,y)}); however, subscrited numbers should be the same since both y
> and z are bound by the same lamba, the nearest one corresponding to
> number 1. Hence, shouldn't the above be:
>
> flip = Î»x.Î»(y,z).x(z,y) = Î»â‚Î»â‚‚2â‚€(1â‚, 1â‚€)
>
> ? Also, since the abstraction indices seem to start at 1, shouldn't
> the argument indices also start at 1? I think that would make the
> notation more consistent, and would result in:
>
> flip = Î»x.Î»(y,z).x(z,y) = Î»â‚Î»â‚‚2_1(1_2, 1_1)
>
> (where a subscript of I have been replaced with _I).
>
You are correct on both accounts. I fixed the README at debruijnbind's
new home on github.
https://github.com/camio/debruijnbind
Thanks for the bug report!
 David
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk