[chuck-users] FLOSS (user editable) manual for ChucK

Scott Hewitt wittlist at googlemail.com
Thu Dec 17 18:32:32 EST 2009

Agree regarding the sectioning,

I had always wondered what the ordering scheme was!

Grouping similar elements regarding function/role would make more
sense to me and I think would provide a more organic learning


2009/12/17 Kassen <signal.automatique at gmail.com>:
> I threw some of the sorting of the (otherwise great) chapter on operators
> about a bit.
> The version I edited followed the convention of the old manual of putting
> "new" and "!" (not) in the same section as operators that take only a single
> input and put "-" (minus) in with those. I moved "!" to the logical
> operators section, explaining that it's a exception there (in taking a
> single argument), put minus in with the math as a side-note (where I feel it
> belongs) and elaborated on "new" in relation to "@".
> My reasoning here is that in a older version of the pdf "new" was only
> mentioned as being similar to "!" in taking a single argument and this was
> -at the time- extremely confusing to me as -aside from this- "new" is
> nothing like "not" at all. "not" has been a elementary logical operation
> since at least Frege, it's the only (non-trivial) single argument operation
> in binary logic; it belongs in there.
> I'm -again- open for debate here, but a sectioning based on role and
> function makes a lot more sense to me than the old sectioning based on the
> number of arguments.
> Just pointing this out because I don't want to arbitrarily throw stuff about
> without justification.
> While I was at it I added "~" (bitwise invert) that wasn't previously
> documented aside from Stefan's helpful note on the WiKi.
> Kas.
> _______________________________________________
> chuck-users mailing list
> chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users

More information about the chuck-users mailing list