You can also saute an onion before adding the rice and water, and add a bullion cube, to improve the flavor.
oessessnex
joined 1 year ago
As you already figured out the types are sets with a certain number of elements.
Two types are isomorphic if you can write a function that converts all elements of the first one into the elements of the second one and a function which does the reverse. You can then use this as the equality.
The types with the same number of elements are isomorphic, i.e True | False = Left | Right. For example, you can write a function that converts True to Left, False to Right, and a function that does the reverse.
Therefore you essentially only need types 0, 1, 2, 3, ..., where type 0 has 0 elements, type 1 has 1 element, etc. and all others are isomorphic to one of these.
Let's use (*) for the product and (+) for the sum, and letters for generic types. Then you can essentially manipulate types as natural numbers (the same laws hold, associativity, commutativity, identity elements, distributivity).
For example:
2 = 1 + 1 can be interpreted as Bool = True | False
2 * 1 = 2 can be interpreted as (Bool, Unit) = Bool
2 * x = x + x can be interpreted as (Bool, x) = This of x | That of x
o(x) = x + 1 can be interpreted as Option x = Some of x | None
l(x) = o(x * l(x)) = x * l(x) + 1 can be interpreted as List x = Option (x, List x)
l(x) = x * l(x) + 1 = x * (x * l(x) + 1) + 1 = x * x * l(x) + x + 1 = x * x * (l(x) + 1) + x + 1 = x * x * l(x) + x * x + x + 1 so a list is either empty, has 1 element or 2 elements, ... (if you keep substituting)
For the expression problem, read this paper: doi:10.1007/BFb0019443
The sum and product types follow pretty much the same algebraic laws as natural numbers if you take isomorphism as equality.
Also class inheritance allows adding behaviour to existing classes, so it's essentially a solution to the expression problem.
The way you can think of it is that in OCaml everything is implicitly wrapped in an IO monad. In Haskell the IO monad is explicit, so if a function returns something in IO you know it can perform input and output, in OCaml there is no way to tell just from the types. That means that in Haskell the code naturally stratifies into a part that does input and output and a pure core. In OCaml you can do the same thing, however it needs to be a conscious design decision.
The implementations mostly don't matter. The only thing that you need to get right are the interfaces.
XKB config files work under sway without XWayland.
Well, most people installing Arch for the first time have no idea what a typical Linux install does under the hood. That makes it a worthwhile learning experience. The same commands you use during the setup you can later use to fix or change things. It basically forces you to become a somewhat proficient Linux user.
On a phone with spyware installed that wouldn't do anything. There are probably ways to get rid of it, but how can you be sure?
Yes, I meant a bouillon or stock cube, sorry for the typo. Or you can use stock or a broth instead of water.
Stock is also pretty easy to make. You can buy a whole chicken and then throw the leftover carcass, skins, bones, with onions, carrots, celery and some herbs into a pot and simmer it for 2 hours.