From: Jon Harrop
Subject: Re: GSL bindings
Date: 
Message-ID: <469fcd7f$0$1620$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>
Jason Nielsen wrote:
> Does anyone have or know of a complete set of bindings to GSL
> (http://www.gnu.org/software/gsl/)?

  http://oandrieu.nerim.net/ocaml/gsl/

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
OCaml for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/?usenet
From: Jason Nielsen
Subject: Re: GSL bindings
Date: 
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707191451570.3309@janus>
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Jon Harrop wrote:

>
>
> Jason Nielsen wrote:
>> Does anyone have or know of a complete set of bindings to GSL
>> (http://www.gnu.org/software/gsl/)?
>
>  http://oandrieu.nerim.net/ocaml/gsl/
>

Seeing as this is a lisp newsgroup I was clearly asking for a GSL binding 
to a common lisp system ... which I think is quite clear if you un-snip 
the remainder of my post.  That is nice that there are GSL bindings for 
Ocaml available... that doesn't however help me access GSL routines from 
lisp!

I've looked at Ocaml before but never really gave it a go.  People knock 
lisp sexp syntax .... but I seriously can't understand how anyone would 
find Ocaml pleasant.  It has a syntax only a Mother could love.  Mom even 
paid for some plastic surgery with the "revised" syntax that comes bundled 
to remedy shortcomings in the original!!

Jason
From: Sacha
Subject: Re: GSL bindings
Date: 
Message-ID: <RnSni.5797$v_1.143433@phobos.telenet-ops.be>
Jason Nielsen wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Jon Harrop wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> Jason Nielsen wrote:
>>> Does anyone have or know of a complete set of bindings to GSL
>>> (http://www.gnu.org/software/gsl/)?
>>
>>  http://oandrieu.nerim.net/ocaml/gsl/
>>
> 
> Seeing as this is a lisp newsgroup I was clearly asking for a GSL 
> binding to a common lisp system ... which I think is quite clear if you 
> un-snip the remainder of my post.  That is nice that there are GSL 
> bindings for Ocaml available... that doesn't however help me access GSL 
> routines from lisp!
> 
> I've looked at Ocaml before but never really gave it a go.  People knock 
> lisp sexp syntax .... but I seriously can't understand how anyone would 
> find Ocaml pleasant.  It has a syntax only a Mother could love.  Mom 
> even paid for some plastic surgery with the "revised" syntax that comes 
> bundled to remedy shortcomings in the original!!
> 
> Jason


Oh come-on how could you deny the elegance in conciseness of OCaml's 
infix notation ?

from http://www.podval.org/~sds/ocaml-sucks.html

Int64.to_float (Int64.sub (Int64.mul q (Int64.of_int n)) (Int64.mul s 
s))) /. (float n)


Sacha
From: GP lisper
Subject: Re: GSL bindings
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrnfa2idk.a4o.spambait@phoenix.clouddancer.com>
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:23:29 GMT, <····@address.spam> wrote:
>
> Oh come-on how could you deny the elegance in conciseness of OCaml's 
> infix notation ?
>
> from http://www.podval.org/~sds/ocaml-sucks.html
>
> Int64.to_float (Int64.sub (Int64.mul q (Int64.of_int n)) (Int64.mul s 
> s))) /. (float n)

Could you post your comment again?  Line-noise seems to have corrupted it.


-- 
There are no average Common Lisp programmers
Reply-To: email is ignored.

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: Jon Harrop
Subject: Re: GSL bindings
Date: 
Message-ID: <46a150c3$0$1631$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>
GP lisper wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:23:29 GMT, <····@address.spam> wrote:
>> Int64.to_float (Int64.sub (Int64.mul q (Int64.of_int n)) (Int64.mul s
>> s))) /. (float n)
> 
> Could you post your comment again?  Line-noise seems to have corrupted it.

  (q * n - s) /. n

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
OCaml for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/?usenet
comp.lang.lisp / 2007 / jul