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 (Just for historical reference, credit for the data structure that works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 p
Heinrich Apfelmus 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 Ap
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 pan
Derek Elkins gmail.com> writes:
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Will Ness yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Derek Elkins gmail.com> writes:
> >> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Will Ness yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > Hello cafe,
> >> >
> >> > I wonder, if we have List.insert and List.union, why
> >> >
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Will Ness wrote:
> Derek Elkins gmail.com> writes:
>> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Will Ness 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.min
Will Ness schrieb:
> Christian Maeder 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.
>> Wh
Christian Maeder 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 use directly
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 mor
Derek Elkins gmail.com> writes:
>
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Will Ness 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
> > operations.
>
Derek Elkins gmail.com> writes:
>
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Will Ness 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
> > operations.
>
10 matches
Mail list logo
