At 09:26 AM 3/27/2001 -0800, Peter Buckingham wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> > At 09:50 PM 3/26/2001 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
>
>[..]
>
> > >I'd think /perl/ should complain if your comparison function isn't
> > >idempotent (if warnings on, of course). If nothing else, it's probably an
> > >indicator that you should be using that schwartz thang.
> >
> > If you figure out how, tell me. I'd like to make arrangements to be there
> > for your Nobel acceptance speech. :) (This is, alas, a variant on the
> > halting problem, unless you're proposing perl do the memoizing *and* still
> > call the functions, and complain if one doesn't match the other)
>
>not wanting to collect my nobel prize just yet, but...
>
>could you not try a simple test (not guaranteed to be 100% accurate though),
>by copying the first data element and apply it twice and then check to see
>that the result of applying it once is the same as applying it twice.
Feels a little too magic to me, and awfully fragile. I'm not comfortable
doing that, though arguments to the contrary are welcome.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
