On Jun 5, 2013, at 12:15 PM, Matthias Vallentin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Is this merging bf2 into bf1? Would it make sense to return a new >> "opaque of bloomfilter" instead? > > I was aiming for non-mutable semantics: the function leaves both bf1 > and bf2 untouched, but merely returns bf1 + bf2, where "+" means union > of the underlying bit vectors. So it sounds like having the merge function returning bool was an accident? Seems like we're all on the same page. :) .Seth -- Seth Hall International Computer Science Institute (Bro) because everyone has a network http://www.bro.org/ _______________________________________________ bro-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev
