(Re: Eray's code using FiniteMaps/Sets)
> Comments welcome,
I'd suggest
> show s = "mkSet " ++ show (setToList s)
> show fm = "listToFM " ++ show (fmToList fm)
That way you can easily paste the output of a program
into your code back again, and you can easily tell
the type of the `showed'
On Wednesday 29 May 2002 02:58, Hal Daume III wrote:
> Is there any particular reason FiniteMap (and hence Set) aren't instances
> of Ord? I realize it's "weird" to define a map to be ordered, but even if
> the Ord definition were in some sense "nonsensical", being able to have,
> for instance, S
Johannes Waldmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I find that I use Set and FiniteMap rather for reasons of clarity in
> coding. This is what `you guys in industry' call `academic
> programming', right :-) If speed is really an important issue, then
> one would have to resort to some kind of hash
> > setToList will be very inefficient (or at least much more so than an
> > instance which actually looks at the tree structure).
this would be much more difficult to design,
since one and the same set may be represented by quite different trees:
they might have been created by inserting element
I'll happily incorporate the code if someone sends me a patch...
Cheers,
Simon
> -Original Message-
> From: Hal Daume III [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 29 May 2002 15:03
> To: Johannes Waldmann
> Cc: GHC Users Mailing List
> Subject: Re: instance
I agree; the problem is that I fear that making my own instance by using
setToList will be very inefficient (or at least much more so than an
instance which actually looks at the tree structure).
--
Hal Daume III
"Computer science is no more about computers| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
than astrono
> for instance, Sets of Sets of things would be really nice.
Sure. One could simply use lexicographic ordering
(i. e. s1 `compare` s2 = setToList s1 `compare` setToList s2)
or length-lexicographic ordering (for efficiency)
... = (cardinality s1, setToList s1) `compare` (cardinality s2, setToLis
On Wednesday 29 May 2002 02:58, Hal Daume III wrote:
> Is there any particular reason FiniteMap (and hence Set) aren't instances
> of Ord? I realize it's "weird" to define a map to be ordered, but even if
> the Ord definition were in some sense "nonsensical", being able to have,
> for instance, S
