On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Stefan Schmiedl <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:16:12 -0300
> Bruno Deferrari <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> And now that we are at it, integers as sequences can be confusing too
>> (like in your example, 0 matches because it is the first element of
>> the CHAR: a sequence, matches as the key and 1 being the second
>> matches as the value), is that necessary now that factor has ranges?
>
> Well, I'm thoroughly confused already by my string example. I have
> not yet really thought about the sequenciability of integers...
>
> On the one hand, "abc" seems to be interpreted as an association with
> three keys: "abc" keys -> { 0 0 0 }
> On the other hand, requesting a value for one such key yields something
> obviously not contained in the association.
1. Strings and Integers are Sequences (Integers are sequences from 0
to n-1 and empty for 0)
2. Sequences are instances of assoc (to make alists work I guess)
3. "abc" is being treated as an alist (alist exampe: { { "key1"
"value1" } { "key2" "value2" } } )
4. being 'CHAR: a' one of the elements of the sequence, and being a
character an integer, and being integers sequences too, then CHAR: a
is like { 0 1 2 3 .. 96 } ('CHAR: a' is 97)
5. On an alist, the key is the first element of the inner sequence (0
here, or "key1" on the alist example)
6. On an alist, the value is the second element of the inner sequence
(for 'CHAR: a' or any integer greater than 1 it is 1), thats why you
are getting 1
> On the third hand: Does any of the available assoc implementations actually
> support multiple usages of the same key?
>
> What I'd have expected of an assoc-conforming string, would be
> access to its characters: 2 "abc" at -> either b or c
>
> s.
>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Deferrari <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> > I may be wrong, but I think that sequence is an instance of assoc to
>> > make alists work (look at the definition of at*). But yeah, I don't
>> > like how interacts with sequences in general.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Stefan Schmiedl <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Recently on #concatenative
>> >>
>> >> [14:40] <swsch> What am I doing wrong: H{ { "a" 1 } } "a" at .
>> >> ---> f [14:41] <tizoc> swsch: "a" goes before H{ ... }
>> >> [14:42] <tizoc> at's stack effect is ( key assoc -- value/f )
>> >> [14:48] <swsch> so ... I'm being stupid, that's ok
>> >> [14:48] <swsch> why does "a" implement assoc-protocol?
>> >> [14:57] <swsch> ah ... INSTANCE: sequence assoc does it
>> >> [14:58] <swsch> but a string is a somewhat strange assoc ...
>> >> "abc" keys --> { 0 0 0 } [15:00] <swsch> and even funnier 0
>> >> "abc" at -> 1 ... what's the idea behind that?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Stay on top of everything new and different, both inside and
> around Java (TM) technology - register by April 22, and save
> $200 on the JavaOne (SM) conference, June 2-5, 2009, San Francisco.
> 300 plus technical and hands-on sessions. Register today.
> Use priority code J9JMT32. http://p.sf.net/sfu/p
> _______________________________________________
> Factor-talk mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stay on top of everything new and different, both inside and
around Java (TM) technology - register by April 22, and save
$200 on the JavaOne (SM) conference, June 2-5, 2009, San Francisco.
300 plus technical and hands-on sessions. Register today.
Use priority code J9JMT32. http://p.sf.net/sfu/p
_______________________________________________
Factor-talk mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
