On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.eduwrote:
This is probably a silly question, but don't you also need some way to
check if two sets have been unioned? Does your application not need
that?
You check to see if their canonical element is the same.
Robby
But I should probably provide that, since it can be done more reliably
inside the library.
Robby
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.eduwrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.eduwrote:
This is probably a silly
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Danny Yoo d...@hashcollision.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
I've just pushed an implementation of the union-find algorithm to the
data/
collection. I didn't do it quite the way wikipedia
But wouldn't that equate two un-unioned invocations of (uf-new 1)?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
But I should probably provide that, since it can be done more reliably
inside the library.
Robby
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Robby
Thanks. That's a bug.
uf-set-canonical! changes the canonical element of the set (without
affecting the identity of the set).
Robby
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Danny Yoo d...@hashcollision.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
I understood you to be asking for something like this:
(check-equal? (uf-same-set? (uf-new 1) (uf-new 2)) #f)
(check-equal? (uf-same-set? (uf-new 1) (uf-new 1)) #f)
(check-equal? (let ([a (uf-new 1)]
[b (uf-new 1)])
(uf-union! a b)
Yes, exactly. I meant that the strategy of just checking the
canonical element would have the problem I described -- having an
operation for that would fix it.
Sam
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
I understood you to be asking for something like
7 matches
Mail list logo
