Darren Duncan wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
It seems simpler to say that one() produces bags rather than sets.

If we don't make other modifications to the language then this would mean that a Junction is defined over a union type, "Set|Bag with additional behaviors", depending on what operator constructed it.

Now maybe that's fine.

Or alternately, why not just redefine a Junction for consistency to say it is a "Bag with additional behaviors" rather than a "Set with additional behaviors"? Would doing this break anything? Do any intended uses of a Junction specifically versus a plain Set|Bag involve asking how many instances of a value there are, or asking how many distinct values or value instances are in the Junction? Aside from the 3 answers: exactly none, exactly one, one or more?

The meaning of any() and all() do not change if the collection is allowed to be a Bag instead of a Set. There are two reasonable meanings for one(), either duplicates collapse done to single members of the collection or duplicates cancel (or are ignored, same thing). The later interpretation would mean that one(1,2,3,3) is the same as one(1,2), but constants aren't the interesting case, one(@a) is. I suppose we could define a :uniq(true|false) adverb to modify the meaning of one() so we could have both interpretations.

Mark Biggar

Reply via email to