Lambda Operator in LaTeX
commutative.xyz
Lambda Operator in LaTeX
1–10 of 23 posts
Re: Lambda Operator in LaTeX
#2A bit disapointing. It's mostly about parsing, not usage.
Half of the post is about handling UTF-8, which AFAIK both LuaTeX and XeTeX (you really shoulduse either) do natively.
Re: Lambda Operator in LaTeX
#3"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."
Re: Lambda Operator in LaTeX
#4A bit disapointing. It's mostly about parsing, not usage. Half of the post is about handling UTF-8, which AFAIK both LuaTeX and XeTeX (you really shoulduse either) do natively.
Sorry you feel like that. I tried to counteract for this by including the TL;DR at the top. OTOH this did come from an effort to implement the lambda calculus I discuss at the beginning, but I thought it was reasonable enough to make a small post.
LuaTeX and XeTeX usually aren't an option where LaTeX comes up, i.e., in academic submissions. This is a common discussion, see [the comments under my previous post].
Re: Lambda Operator in LaTeX
#5Having spent most of the day stepping on LaTeX rakes, I am really at a loss how anyone could think that making it more programmable would think that's a good idea.
There are very few bits of software that are more arcane and broken by default than this absolute crapstraction of a platform.
Re: Lambda Operator in LaTeX
#6Combine this with that paper of C compiler written entirely in lambda terms[0], now LaTeX is a compilation platform as well!
Re: Lambda Operator in LaTeX
#7Having spent most of the day stepping on LaTeX rakes, I am really at a loss how anyone could think that making it more programmable would think that's a good idea. There are very few bits of software that are more arcane and broken by default than this absolute crapstraction of a platform.
> There are very few bits of software that are more arcane and broken by default than this absolute crapstraction of a platform.
And that is exactly why a more programmable platform would be good! These issues arise in the first place largely because TeX is not easily programmable, so people have to find arcane workarounds to do anything complex in it.
Re: Lambda Operator in LaTeX
#8Having spent most of the day stepping on LaTeX rakes, I am really at a loss how anyone could think that making it more programmable would think that's a good idea. There are very few bits of software that are more arcane and broken by default than this absolute crapstraction of a platform.
wish granted, advanced LaTeX macro programming will now have to be done in ksh
Re: Lambda Operator in LaTeX
#9Is it possible to do something like Jupiter notebook like so you can demonstrate some (commonn lisp) and then show their result. Like Notebook support some tex.
Too much to ask for I guess. Continue waiting.
Re: Lambda Operator in LaTeX
#10Having spent most of the day stepping on LaTeX rakes, I am really at a loss how anyone could think that making it more programmable would think that's a good idea. There are very few bits of software that are more arcane and broken by default than this absolute crapstraction of a platform.
> There are very few bits of software that are more arcane and broken by default than this absolute crapstraction of a platform. And that is exactly why a more programmable platform would be good! These issues arise in the first place largely because TeX is not easily programmable, so people have to find arcane workarounds to do anything complex in it.
The weirdness is totally expected for something originally designed in 1983. What is unexpected is that there is still no good replacement for writing math…