The cancellation behavior makes no sense to me. I expect ?one(0, 1,
2, 2) to return false. That happens whether or not it collapses the
2's to one 2, but not if it ignores/cancels them.
The question is, what should ?one(0, 1, 1) return? I think it's
pretty clearly false, which implies that
HaloO,
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
Presumably the values of a one() junction do not collapse in
this way, otherwise we could easily lose the fact that
a value occurs more than once:
my $a = (one(1,2,3) % 2 == 1);
Do I understand your question right, that you want the return
of == to be
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 2:24 PM, TSa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do I understand your question right, that you want the return
of == to be false because there is a one(1,0,1) junction? As
Duncan points out junctions are immutable values and as such
the % autothreads but the resulting values are
HaloO,
Leon Timmermans wrote:
Still that doesn't solve the problem of his code example. If my
understanding of the synopses is correct, operations on junctions
generate a new junction, so `one(1,2,3) % 2 == 1` will collapse to
one(1 % 2 == 1, 2 % 2 == 1, 3 % 2 == 1), which is one(true, false,
According to Synopsis 2, under Immutable types, a Junction is a Set with
additional behaviors. This implies to me a Junction consists just of
distinct unordered values. A Junction is not a Bag and it doesn't matter
that we lose the fact that a value occurred more than once in the arguments
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 02:55:06PM +0100, Leon Timmermans wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 2:24 PM, TSa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pm wrote:
Presumably the values of a one() junction do not collapse in
this way, otherwise we could easily lose the fact that
a value occurs more than once:
HaloO,
Leon Timmermans wrote:
But of what use would one() if it were to use those semantics? It
would be essentially the same as any(), and it would definitely not
DWIM.
So you want one(1,1,2,3) to compare equal to 2 or 3 and exclude 1
because it is in the junction twice. That could be
HaloO,
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
I expect that $a will become one(True, False, True). $a doesn't
collapse to a non-Junction False until it is used in a boolean context.
My proposal is a different unification behavior in one() junctions.
my $a = one(1,2,3) % 2 == 1;
-- my $a =
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 05:02:56PM +0100, TSa wrote:
HaloO,
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
I expect that $a will become one(True, False, True). $a doesn't
collapse to a non-Junction False until it is used in a boolean context.
My proposal is a different unification behavior in one() junctions.
Darren Duncan wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
It seems simpler to say that one() produces bags rather than sets.
If we don't make other modifications to the language then this would
mean that a Junction is defined over a union type, Set|Bag with
additional behaviors, depending on what operator
10 matches
Mail list logo
