Screenshot instructions:
Windows
Mac
Red Hat Linux
Ubuntu
Click URL instructions:
Rightclick on ad, choose "Copy Link", then paste here →
(This may not be possible with some types of ads)
You can subscribe to this list here.
2004 
_{Jan}

_{Feb}

_{Mar}

_{Apr}

_{May}

_{Jun}

_{Jul}

_{Aug}
(1) 
_{Sep}

_{Oct}

_{Nov}

_{Dec}


2005 
_{Jan}
(1) 
_{Feb}

_{Mar}

_{Apr}

_{May}

_{Jun}

_{Jul}

_{Aug}

_{Sep}

_{Oct}

_{Nov}

_{Dec}

2009 
_{Jan}

_{Feb}

_{Mar}
(1) 
_{Apr}

_{May}

_{Jun}

_{Jul}

_{Aug}
(17) 
_{Sep}
(34) 
_{Oct}

_{Nov}

_{Dec}

2010 
_{Jan}

_{Feb}
(100) 
_{Mar}
(122) 
_{Apr}
(5) 
_{May}

_{Jun}
(17) 
_{Jul}
(36) 
_{Aug}
(9) 
_{Sep}
(111) 
_{Oct}
(92) 
_{Nov}
(76) 
_{Dec}
(26) 
2011 
_{Jan}
(3) 
_{Feb}
(35) 
_{Mar}
(36) 
_{Apr}
(10) 
_{May}
(9) 
_{Jun}
(2) 
_{Jul}
(3) 
_{Aug}
(2) 
_{Sep}

_{Oct}
(7) 
_{Nov}
(12) 
_{Dec}

2012 
_{Jan}
(19) 
_{Feb}
(1) 
_{Mar}
(4) 
_{Apr}
(1) 
_{May}
(6) 
_{Jun}
(69) 
_{Jul}
(21) 
_{Aug}
(12) 
_{Sep}
(14) 
_{Oct}
(1) 
_{Nov}
(3) 
_{Dec}

2013 
_{Jan}
(6) 
_{Feb}
(1) 
_{Mar}
(6) 
_{Apr}
(3) 
_{May}
(6) 
_{Jun}
(1) 
_{Jul}

_{Aug}

_{Sep}

_{Oct}
(2) 
_{Nov}
(3) 
_{Dec}

2014 
_{Jan}

_{Feb}

_{Mar}
(6) 
_{Apr}

_{May}

_{Jun}

_{Jul}

_{Aug}

_{Sep}

_{Oct}

_{Nov}

_{Dec}

2015 
_{Jan}
(4) 
_{Feb}

_{Mar}

_{Apr}

_{May}

_{Jun}

_{Jul}

_{Aug}

_{Sep}

_{Oct}

_{Nov}
(1) 
_{Dec}
(3) 
2016 
_{Jan}
(6) 
_{Feb}
(1) 
_{Mar}
(3) 
_{Apr}
(1) 
_{May}
(3) 
_{Jun}
(1) 
_{Jul}
(1) 
_{Aug}
(3) 
_{Sep}
(2) 
_{Oct}
(1) 
_{Nov}
(1) 
_{Dec}
(1) 
2017 
_{Jan}

_{Feb}
(2) 
_{Mar}
(1) 
_{Apr}

_{May}

_{Jun}

_{Jul}
(2) 
_{Aug}

_{Sep}

_{Oct}

_{Nov}

_{Dec}

S  M  T  W  T  F  S 







1

2

3

4

5
(4) 
6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13
(1) 
14

15

16

17
(1) 
18

19

20
(1) 
21
(7) 
22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30







From: Lukasz Kaiser <lukaszkaiser@gm...>  20120921 23:20:16

> Nullary (with regard to subterms) terms are translated as predicates > over a single element, unary terms as relations between the element > corresponding to the term and the element corresponding to the > subterm, arity N terms into arity N+1 relations. All supertypes are > translated as predicates / relations whose first argument is the same > element as the element generated for the whole term. That's the idea > behind translating terms to structures: a new element for each subterm > unless it is shared, but no new elements for supertypes. If you > recall, in the "formal" notation we represent terms by "f (supertypes > ; subterms)", and supertypes are of this form as well so can introduce > more subterms. You are absolutely right  I somehow misunderstood the previous mail very badly. Do you think we could get back formulas from the structures generated by terms relatively easily? That would be a good motivation, at least for me, to think about implementing this translation finally :). But I am still not entirely sure how this will help with formulas (even though now I think I start to see the point). Best! Lukasz 
From: Lukasz Stafiniak <lukstafi@gm...>  20120921 23:14:47

On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 12:54 AM, Lukasz Kaiser <lukaszkaiser@...> wrote: > > I'm afraid that I do not fully understand  why are these quantified variants > of translating to structures, and why is that easier? I am surely in favour > of starting with the easier thing! Nullary (with regard to subterms) terms are translated as predicates over a single element, unary terms as relations between the element corresponding to the term and the element corresponding to the subterm, arity N terms into arity N+1 relations. All supertypes are translated as predicates / relations whose first argument is the same element as the element generated for the whole term. That's the idea behind translating terms to structures: a new element for each subterm unless it is shared, but no new elements for supertypes. If you recall, in the "formal" notation we represent terms by "f (supertypes ; subterms)", and supertypes are of this form as well so can introduce more subterms. 
From: Lukasz Kaiser <lukaszkaiser@gm...>  20120921 22:55:03

> These are quantified variants of translating terms to structures... So > it would be natural to share code between translating to formulas and > translating to structures. And start with the latter since it's simpler. I'm afraid that I do not fully understand  why are these quantified variants of translating to structures, and why is that easier? I am surely in favour of starting with the easier thing! Lukasz 
From: Lukasz Stafiniak <lukstafi@gm...>  20120921 22:34:13

On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 12:19 AM, Lukasz Kaiser <lukaszkaiser@...> wrote: > (2) typed formulas; I mean support for multityped structures, when the > universe is divided into many subsets of different type and formulas are > implicitly only about the subset; the guards in the formula could be then > automatically derived from the types, so e.g you could say > "ex x parent(x, y) and ex z drives_bicycle(y, z)" and automatically it would > become "ex x (Person (x) and parent (x, y) and ex z (Object (z) and ...)))". > (3) finally support for functional formulas and constants! It is very disturbing > to write every time "ex zero (is_zero(zero) and ex one (succ (zero, one) and > succ (one, x))" when you want to say "x = succ (succ (zero))". We could try > to put this inside Formula and Structure ml, but I think a lot can be done > just by preprocessing. Still  it is too complex for FormulaParser I think, > and it could be a good test for some features of Term. These are quantified variants of translating terms to structures... So it would be natural to share code between translating to formulas and translating to structures. And start with the latter since it's simpler. 
From: Lukasz Kaiser <lukaszkaiser@gm...>  20120921 22:20:36

Hi. > I see no (short term) value in doing that without a "vision". I think > I will do a tests/Polish.trs or some other test to expose the > "hierarchical" / inheritance aspect of new terms. I finally have an > idea of which "supertypes" to display, and how :) it is related to > exposing GLB for use from the trs level. The default for printing > terms will be to display those superclasses that are more specific > than the corresponding declared supertypes. So I'm only thinking about > finishing the Speagram work... I think polish trs is a very nice idea, independent of everything else :). But I am really convinced that doing formulas in Term is also important. And yes  it is not a "vision"  and it has nothing visionary in itself. But it is integration, and visions without integration become irrelevant very fast. Still  I do have a few points which I think could be done with Term when basic integration with Toss is ready. These are very preliminary suggestions, so do not treat them too seriously  but maybe at least one is important. (1) a languageinterface to Toss finally (using SGRS and Term) (2) typed formulas; I mean support for multityped structures, when the universe is divided into many subsets of different type and formulas are implicitly only about the subset; the guards in the formula could be then automatically derived from the types, so e.g you could say "ex x parent(x, y) and ex z drives_bicycle(y, z)" and automatically it would become "ex x (Person (x) and parent (x, y) and ex z (Object (z) and ...)))". (3) finally support for functional formulas and constants! It is very disturbing to write every time "ex zero (is_zero(zero) and ex one (succ (zero, one) and succ (one, x))" when you want to say "x = succ (succ (zero))". We could try to put this inside Formula and Structure ml, but I think a lot can be done just by preprocessing. Still  it is too complex for FormulaParser I think, and it could be a good test for some features of Term. I think I could also see a few more use cases just for Formulas, but the main point  I hope you can see it  is to start really *using* the new Term features. It will surely reveal some problems and maybe we will learn other nice ways of doing some things  but I think Term is ready to start being really used :). Best! Lukasz 
From: Lukasz Stafiniak <lukstafi@gm...>  20120921 19:20:29

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Lukasz Kaiser <lukaszkaiser@...> wrote: > > This looks nice  it will finish the term part without sharing, right? > But the next step I was talking about does not require any vision > at all. I meant exactly replacing the current FormulaParser with Term, > i.e. just writing a trs specification for formulas, a function to get them > back in ocaml, and actually replacing the parser with Term. > What do you think about that? I see no (short term) value in doing that without a "vision". I think I will do a tests/Polish.trs or some other test to expose the "hierarchical" / inheritance aspect of new terms. I finally have an idea of which "supertypes" to display, and how :) it is related to exposing GLB for use from the trs level. The default for printing terms will be to display those superclasses that are more specific than the corresponding declared supertypes. So I'm only thinking about finishing the Speagram work... 
From: Lukasz Kaiser <lukaszkaiser@gm...>  20120921 12:40:53

Hi. > I don't have a vision of how Toss specifications should look like, so > I don't see shortterm benefits. I'll finish basing rewriting on > ISAmatching (it only needs revision of associating rules with > functors), and expose Greatest Lower Bound so that the implemented > machinery is available for use; leaving only the explicit sharing and > term<>structure translations not implemented. This looks nice  it will finish the term part without sharing, right? But the next step I was talking about does not require any vision at all. I meant exactly replacing the current FormulaParser with Term, i.e. just writing a trs specification for formulas, a function to get them back in ocaml, and actually replacing the parser with Term. What do you think about that? Lukasz 
From: Lukasz Stafiniak <lukstafi@gm...>  20120920 19:06:55

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Lukasz Kaiser <lukaszkaiser@...> wrote: > > a hard look at where we are with Toss, thinking about a release, > and it seems to me that the new things (Term and Diagram) have > one big problem  lack of integration. Of course  sharing will help > integrate terms with structures a lot, but I think we should start > by using Term as a parser for formulas. What do you think? > Formulas are in fact the biggest part of any toss file, so if we > move with formulas to termbased parsing, that will be a lot. > And it could finally allow some typechecking inside formulas! I don't have a vision of how Toss specifications should look like, so I don't see shortterm benefits. I'll finish basing rewriting on ISAmatching (it only needs revision of associating rules with functors), and expose Greatest Lower Bound so that the implemented machinery is available for use; leaving only the explicit sharing and term<>structure translations not implemented. Good luck! 
From: Lukasz Kaiser <lukaszkaiser@gm...>  20120917 16:31:46

Hi. > I propose that shared subterms have two representations: [...] I like the representation with "Ref" that you are writing about, but I think that we should go back a little bit and do a few other things before we proceed with sharing (or diagrams for that matter). I took a hard look at where we are with Toss, thinking about a release, and it seems to me that the new things (Term and Diagram) have one big problem  lack of integration. Of course  sharing will help integrate terms with structures a lot, but I think we should start by using Term as a parser for formulas. What do you think? Formulas are in fact the biggest part of any toss file, so if we move with formulas to termbased parsing, that will be a lot. And it could finally allow some typechecking inside formulas! Lukasz P.S. As to diagrams, I decided that I first need to refactor AssignmentSet a bit, because it is simply to complicated to replace outright. And one thing that I should have done some time ago is to remove MSO assignments. This is not that easy  they are used in some parts  but I started working on it and, as a first step, removed `MSO variant from variables. 
From: Lukasz Stafiniak <lukstafi@gm...>  20120913 01:09:47

Hi, I propose that shared subterms have two representations: either as a sharing variable, possibly referring to a term in an accompanying iterated substitution but it could also be a free variable, or as a new variant, [Ref of string * term], with an implementation invariant: two Refs in a term that have the same name contain physically equal term. Basically, applying an iterated substitution "subst" would replace "SVar (v, ...)" with "Rev (v, subst(v))" rather than directly with "subst(v)". There is a complication leading to the need to store the "Ref" name inside "subst" rather than relying on the name of substituted variable. When sharing variables "x" and "y" are unified they need to be substituted with the same Ref name; but Term already uses the notion of order on variables (just string comparison), it will be natural to add. Regards. 
From: Lukasz Kaiser <lukaszkaiser@gm...>  20120905 09:47:34

> Might be useful. Thanks, it will be! I hope to get to these things relatively soon. Lukasz 
From: Lukasz Kaiser <lukaszkaiser@gm...>  20120905 09:45:02

Hi. > Everyone and their mom seems to be using github these days. I know > you've put some work into updating the svn repository, but do you > think it might be worthwhile to move to git? Just asking. I do not see the value in it as long as there are so few developers (I think git excels at larger projects and involved merges). I was also not happy with this svn change, but sourceforge was pushing it, so it looked inevitable. I'm not sure git is so far already ;). Best, Lukasz 
From: Lukasz Stafiniak <lukstafi@gm...>  20120905 02:09:35

Hi, Everyone and their mom seems to be using github these days. I know you've put some work into updating the svn repository, but do you think it might be worthwhile to move to git? Just asking. Cheers. 
From: Lukasz Stafiniak <lukstafi@gm...>  20120905 02:05:34

Might be useful.  Forwarded message  From: Francois Berenger <berenger@...> Date: Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 4:01 AM Subject: [Camllist] existing implementation of data structures for storing points/doing nearest neighbour search in OCaml To: camllist <camllist@...> Hello, I was looking for a few data structures to accelerate some geometric operations on 3D point sets. I was happily surprised. The harvest was gorgeous: kdtree in OCaml:  https://github.com/bpr/kd_tree Rtree in OCaml:  https://github.com/mariusaeriksen/ocamlrtree Vantage point tree in OCaml:  http://codepad.org/F1hckj5K Regards, F.  Camllist mailing list. Subscription management and archives: https://symparoc.inria.fr/wws/info/camllist Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/camlbugs 