« first day (1894 days earlier)      last day (475 days later) » 

10:38 AM
do yall ever want to change jelly's chaining rules because you lost a lot of bytes?
is the current system optimal?
 
 
1 hour later…
12:05 PM
@PyGamer0 I'm not sure I'd say its optimal, but it's currently extremely good
Aside from the 2,2 dyadic case, all the patterns are very intuitive, and golfy
 
what about the 2,2?
> I'm not sure I'd say its optimal
so in what cases it isnt optimal?
 
@PyGamer0 I say that more in "I can't prove its optimal"
@PyGamer0 If you have two dyads fg with arguments x on left and y on the right, it yields x f (x g y), which can be a bit weird
 
@Zionmyceliaadamancy ok continue...
@Zionmyceliaadamancy for flax i changed it to 2,2 -> (w × x) + λ
 
@PyGamer0 Not much more to it, but the current way is very good, and I can't think of an obvious, recurring pattern which would be shorter. That said, it wouldn't surprise me if there is a more optimal set of patterns out there
 
12:22 PM
in The Nineteenth Byte, yesterday, by ais523
my main focus has been on the chaining rules, because Jelly's aren't very good in practice, frequently requiring extra bytes to disambiguate
 
12:43 PM
@PyGamer0 Not sure I entirely agree with ais, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
 
1 hour later…
1:47 PM
i feel like dyadic chaining rules have a highish rate of needing extra bytes but they're still very good
all i can think of to improve that without the sort of overhaul he's thinking of would maybe be some way of using monadic chaining rules dyadically; i.e. treating the right argument as the original left argument
but then you'd need to add stuff that actually lets you do that
having some grouping quicks that compose stuff in a way that's independent of normal chaining rules is a good idea but you don't really want to have too many of those
 
 
2 hours later…
3:51 PM
how useful is the 0,2,2 rules?
 
as in the rtl-ified 2,2,0? it's conceptually just giving 2,0 higher "precedence" over 2,2 so you don't end up with a 2,2 then an unparseable 0
you can also solve that by actually grouping 2,0 before applying other chaining rules
though the consequence of making it possible for a monadic chain to 2,(2,0) may be undesirable
i guess you could introduce a fourth pseudo-adicity for "monadic except it always splits the chain"
actually wait that's brilliant
that completely solves the
wait no never mind
 
@UnrelatedString i got excited until i read the last sentence lol
@UnrelatedString in general how often do you use that in dyadic chains?
@UnrelatedString and what do you mean by acidity?
and what is your sleep schedule! do you only sleep for like 4 hours a day?
lol
 
@PyGamer0 reasonably often; it's also the case that the alternative is almost never desirable
@PyGamer0 highly variable™
 
so a 2,2,0 rule for dyadic chain is useful... i will add that then..
 
@PyGamer0 i thought it could introduce a meaningful distinction between dyad-nilad-quick and dyad-quick-nilad for quicks that handle monads and dyads uniformly but then i realized those would both produce the always-split adicity
of course if the design is super jelly-like already you'd also have to worry about quicks that take an optional nilad argument
or a non-optional nilad argument come to think of it lmao
 
4:06 PM
yeah the design is super jelly like
so the only thing i changed is the handling of unparseable nilads
so 1 2 3+3 5 5 gives [1,2,6,8,8]
 
 
1 hour later…
5:15 PM
actually i can just preparse to find the unparsable nilads and those nilads become a list
that sounds smart
 

« first day (1894 days earlier)      last day (475 days later) »