Jon Lang wrote:
Darren Duncan wrote:
This said, I specifically think that a simple pair of curly braces is the
best way to mark a Set.
{1,2,3} # a Set of those 3 elements
... and this is also how it is done in maths I believe (and in Muldis D).
In fact, I strongly support this assuming
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/7/10 23:19 , Jon Lang wrote:
1 -- 2 -- 3
Would be a Bag containing three elements: 1, 2, and 3.
Personally, I wouldn't put a high priority on this; for my purposes,
Bag(1, 2, 3)
works just fine.
Hm. Bag as [! 1, 2, 3 !] and
Brandon S Allbery KF8NH wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/7/10 23:19 , Jon Lang wrote:
1 -- 2 -- 3
Would be a Bag containing three elements: 1, 2, and 3.
Personally, I wouldn't put a high priority on this; for my purposes,
Bag(1, 2, 3)
works just fine.
Jonathan Lang ():
As well, my first impression upon seeing [! ... !] was to think
you're negating everything inside? That said, I could get behind
doubled brackets:
[[1, 2, 3]] # same as Bag(1, 2, 3)
{{1, 2, 3}} # same as Set(1, 2, 3)
AFAIK, this would cause no conflicts with
Carl Mäsak wrote:
Jonathan Lang ():
That saves a singlr character over Bag( ... ) and Set( ... ),
respectively (or three characters, if you find decent unicode bracket
choices). It still wouldn't be a big enough deal to me to bother with
it.
+1. Let's leave it at that.
That said, I do
Jon Lang wrote:
That saves a singlr character over Bag( ... ) and Set( ... ),
respectively (or three characters, if you find decent unicode bracket
choices). It still wouldn't be a big enough deal to me to bother with
it.
As well, my first impression upon seeing [! ... !] was to think
you're
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 12:12 AM, Jon Lang datawea...@gmail.com wrote:
Carl Mäsak wrote:
Jonathan Lang ():
That saves a singlr character over Bag( ... ) and Set( ... ),
respectively (or three characters, if you find decent unicode bracket
choices). It still wouldn't be a big enough deal
Darren Duncan wrote:
Jon Lang wrote:
That saves a singlr character over Bag( ... ) and Set( ... ),
respectively (or three characters, if you find decent unicode bracket
choices). It still wouldn't be a big enough deal to me to bother with
it.
As well, my first impression upon seeing [!
On Tuesday, 9. November 2010 01:45:52 Mason Kramer wrote:
I have to disagree here. Arrays and Hashes may be about storage (I don't
think they are, though, since you can change the (storage) implemenation of
an Array or Hash via its metaclass and it can still remain an Array or
Hash).
What I
On 11/09/2010 09:26 PM, TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) wrote:
But doesn't
my $x = (1,2,3);
my $y = map {$^x * $^x}, $x;
result in $y containing the list (1,4,9)?
Not at all. The $ sigil implies a scalar, so what you get is roughly
my $y = (1, 2, 3).item * (1, 2, 3).item;
so $y ends up
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Jon Lang datawea...@gmail.com wrote:
Mason Kramer wrote:
I'd like to anticipate one objection to this - the existence of the 'hyper'
operator/keyword. The hyper operator says, I am taking responsibility for
this particular code block and promising that it
Solomon Foster wrote:
Well, hyperoperators work fine on Hashes, they operate on the values,
paired up by key if needed. (That is, %hash++ doesn't care about
the keys, %hash1 + %hash2 sums based on keys.) I would assume
that Bag should work in the exact same way. Dunno how Set should work
I'm honored that my letter generated so much activity, and thank you all for
your thoughtful responses. I'd like to address a few points.
On Monday, 8. November 2010 17:20:43 Jon Lang wrote:
Solomon Foster wrote:
Well, hyperoperators work fine on Hashes, they operate on the values,
paired
This is going to be a rambling answer, as I have a number of questions
but no firm conclusions. Please bear with me.
Mason Kramer wrote:
Having Bags flatten in list context is pretty crucial to their being as
easy and terse to use as arrays, because flattening is fundamental to
how Arrays are
I just implemented Bag to the point where it passes the spectests.
(https://github.com/masonk/rakudo/commit/2668178c6ba90863538ea74cfdd287684a20c520)
However, in doing so, I discovered that I'm not really sure what Bags are
for, anymore.
The more I think about Bags and Sets, the more my
Mason Kramer wrote:
snip
I want to propose one major change to the Bag spec: When a Bag is used as an
Iterable, you get an Iterator that has each key in proportion to the number of
times it appears in the Bag.
snip
You present some interesting thoughts here. But I don't have enough time to
Mason Kramer wrote:
I'd like to anticipate one objection to this - the existence of the 'hyper'
operator/keyword. The hyper operator says, I am taking responsibility for
this particular code block and promising that it can execute out of order and
concurrently. Creating a Bag instead of
On 11/08/2010 01:51 AM, Darren Duncan wrote:
Mason Kramer wrote:
snip
I want to propose one major change to the Bag spec: When a Bag is used as an
Iterable, you get an Iterator that has each key in proportion to the number
of times it appears in the Bag.
snip
You present some
18 matches
Mail list logo
