Re^2: Renaming the Schwartzian Transform

Well no, the former should really be called the Schwartz Transform. After all, we don't talk of Huffmanian encoding, Hammingian coding, Lempel-Ziff-Welshian compression or Blum-Blum-Shubbian PRNGs :)

• another intruder with the mooring in the heart of the Perl

Comment on Re^2: Renaming the Schwartzian Transform

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Renaming the Schwartzian Transform by 5mi11er (Deacon) on Sep 21, 2005 at 14:46 UTC
Hmm, you're right, and those all have such nifty rings to them, I think I'll start doing that. .oO(Now is that pronounced huff-man-ee-an or huff-main-ee-an?) Tongue firmly in cheek for the humor impared -Scott	[reply]
Re^3: Renaming the Schwartzian Transform by CountZero (Bishop) on Sep 21, 2005 at 16:26 UTC
I bow before your superior knowledge of the English language. But even then the "Evan Transform" doesn't sound that it can do the same heavy lifting the "Schwartz Transform" can. CountZero "If you have four groups working on a compiler, you'll get a 4-pass compiler." - Conway's Law	[reply]
Re^4: Renaming the Schwartzian Transform by runrig (Abbot) on Sep 21, 2005 at 17:18 UTC
Never underestimate the power of the Schwartz! (and may the Schwartz be with you).	[reply]
Re^5: Renaming the Schwartzian Transform by Ven'Tatsu (Deacon) on Sep 21, 2005 at 17:38 UTC
Damn you beat me to the joke, but I'd atleast like to add: I see your Schwartzian Transform is as big as mine.	[reply]