On Mon Jan 30 06:13:36 2012, moritz wrote:
> The code as-is will never work, because at some point it'll pass an
> empty list to one side of the 'merge' operator, in which case the
> subsignature binding fails.
>
> Here is an updated version (see also https://gist.github.com/1704555 )
>
> multi sub infix:<merge> (@ [], @y) is default { @y };
> multi sub infix:<merge> (@x, @ []) { @x };
> multi sub infix:<merge> (@x [$x, *@xtail], @y [$y,*@ytail]) {
> if $x < $y { $x, (@xtail merge @y) }
> elsif $x > $y { $y, (@x merge @ytail) }
> else { $x, (@xtail merge @ytail) }
> }
>
> my @hamming := (1, (@hamming X* 2) merge (@hamming X* 3) merge (@hamming
> X* 5));
>
> say ~@hamming[^20];
>
> output on current rakudo: 1
11:17 < [Coke]> moritz, TimToady: what is the expected output of the last bit
of code on https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=77474 ?
11:18 < [Coke]> FYI, the current output is 1 0
11:19 < TimToady> http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Hamming_numbers
11:20 < TimToady> but we need the list refactor before that has a hope of
working
11:20 < [Coke]> so, "1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 12 15 16 18 20 24 25 27 30 32 36" is
the expected output?
11:21 < TimToady> yes, if Perl 6 were as good as Haskell at recursive
definitions...
--
Will "Coke" Coleda
