Sorry for the spam everyone, the previous email was mistakenly sent before I had finished.
A decision to make is whether or not we want to support these as operators or as named methods, or perhaps both. With operators we could support additional functions like ‘|=‘ or ‘&=‘, and not have to create as many new domains. By overriding these operators we would prevent promotion, which may or may not be beneficial depending on what users expect out of associative domains. We could also support these operators/functions on associative arrays, if that’s something users find valuable. Another function not included in the email below is ‘subset’: proc domain.subset(d : domain) : bool; // ‘where’ clause left out for readability Does anyone have strong opinions on this topic? -Ben Harshbarger On 7/10/14, 8:13 AM, "Ben Harshbarger" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi all, > >I’m seeking feedback on the following proposed methods/features that would >allow for users to treat associative domains as sets. > >Those that return a new domain: > | (union) > & (intersection) > - (difference) > ^ (symmetric difference) > >A decision to make is whether or not we want to support these as operators > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open source business process management suite built on Java and Eclipse Turn processes into business applications with Bonita BPM Community Edition Quickly connect people, data, and systems into organized workflows Winner of BOSSIE, CODIE, OW2 and Gartner awards http://p.sf.net/sfu/Bonitasoft _______________________________________________ Chapel-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/chapel-users
