Almost a year ago (2005-04-27), I wrote the list asking a question about
junctions.
Specifically, the ability to find the intersection, union, etc of a list.
my $matches = any( @x_chars ) eq any( @y_chars );
my $match = $matches.pick;
all( any() eq any() );
Patrick Michaud offered an infix myeq
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 09:16:23AM -0400, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
: Almost a year ago (2005-04-27), I wrote the list asking a question about
: junctions.
: Specifically, the ability to find the intersection, union, etc of a list.
Junctions are not intended for that use. We have Sets for that now.
On the other hand, if junctions really are sets of sets, then maybe it's
a mistake to autocoerce junctions to sets by swiping their internal set
of values. Arguably any(1,2,3) should coerce not to
(1,2,3)
but to
(
(1),
(2),
(3),
(1,2),
(1,3),
On 4/4/06, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 09:16:23AM -0400, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
Junctions are not intended for that use. We have Sets for that now.
Ok. So this will work out of the box if you use the right tool. Cool.
The cabal already decided once (in
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 11:02:55AM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: Will perl6 Sets include set negation and/or a universal set? In
: effect, an internal flag that says, this set contains every possible
: element _except_ the ones listed?
Arguably, that's what none() is. And all() is the only
Larry Wall wrote:
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 11:02:55AM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: Will perl6 Sets include set negation and/or a universal set? In
: effect, an internal flag that says, this set contains every possible
: element _except_ the ones listed?
Arguably, that's what none() is.
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 11:23:14AM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 11:02:55AM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: : Will perl6 Sets include set negation and/or a universal set? In
: : effect, an internal flag that says, this set contains every possible
: :
2006/4/4, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But this is all based on enumerated sets. Oddly missing are any
Sets that are defined by rule. That would presumably take closures,
though I suppose one can attempt to enumerate the closures that have
to hold true and autothread through the calls to
Larry Wall wrote:
You're confusing the map with the territory. We're trying to decide
*how* Junctions are like Sets, not defining them into two different
universes. I'm saying that all() is the Junction tha is most like
a Set. A none() Junction can be viewed as the specification for an
On 4/4/06, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the other hand, if junctions really are sets of sets, then maybe it's
a mistake to autocoerce junctions to sets by swiping their internal set
of values. Arguably any(1,2,3) should coerce not to
(1,2,3)
but to
(
(1),
On 4/4/06, Jonathan Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, then; what would be the specification for a _single_ set that
contains everything that doesn't intersect with a corresponding all()
Junction (the sort of thing that I'd use if I wanted to find the
largest subset of A that doesn't intersect
2006/4/4, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I don't follow. Why is that the representation of any(1,2,3)? Is
this a disjunctive normal form; i.e. is 2 any(1,2,3) equivalent to
the test:
2 1
|| 2 2
|| 2 3
|| 2 1 2 2
|| ...
2 1
| 2 2
| 2 3
which ends up being the
12 matches
Mail list logo
