Will Ness wrote:
Heinrich Apfelmus writes:
(Just for historical reference, credit for the data structure that works
with infinite merges goes to Dave Bayer, I merely contributed the
mnemonic aid of interpreting it in terms of VIPs.)
yes, yes, my bad. GMANE is very unreliable at presenting
Derek Elkins derek.a.elkins at gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Will Ness will_n48 at yahoo.com wrote:
Derek Elkins derek.a.elkins at gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Will Ness will_n48 at yahoo.com wrote:
Hello cafe,
I wonder, if we have
Will Ness wrote:
You can check it out on the Haskellwiki Prime Numbers page (work still in
progress, the comparison tables are missing). We had also a recent thread
here
in cafe under FASTER primes. The original idea of Heinrich Apfelmus of
treefold merging the composites really panned
Heinrich Apfelmus apfelmus at quantentunnel.de writes:
Will Ness wrote:
You can check it out on the Haskellwiki Prime Numbers page (work still in
progress, the comparison tables are missing). We had also a recent thread
here
in cafe under FASTER primes. The original idea of Heinrich
Will Ness schrieb:
Christian Maeder Christian.Maeder at dfki.de writes:
Will Ness schrieb:
I meant strictly increasing ordered lists, without multiples, for which the
two
operations, 'merge' and 'minus', would also have to produce like lists, i.e
strictly increasing, without multiples.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Will Ness will_...@yahoo.com wrote:
Derek Elkins derek.a.elkins at gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Will Ness will_n48 at yahoo.com wrote:
Hello cafe,
I wonder, if we have List.insert and List.union, why no List.merge (:: Ord
a =
[a] -
Derek Elkins derek.a.elkins at gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Will Ness will_n48 at yahoo.com wrote:
Hello cafe,
I wonder, if we have List.insert and List.union, why no List.merge (:: Ord
a =
[a] - [a] - [a]) and no List.minus ? These seem to be pretty general
Will Ness schrieb:
I meant strictly increasing ordered lists, without multiples, for which the
two
operations, 'merge' and 'minus', would also have to produce like lists, i.e
strictly increasing, without multiples.
Why don't you use directly Data.Set?
I guess the first variety is more
Christian Maeder Christian.Maeder at dfki.de writes:
Will Ness schrieb:
I meant strictly increasing ordered lists, without multiples, for which the
two
operations, 'merge' and 'minus', would also have to produce like lists, i.e
strictly increasing, without multiples.
Why don't you
