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 that
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 upo
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 12:12 AM, Jon Lang 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 to me t
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 n
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 sai
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 w
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)
>>
-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
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
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
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
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,
>>>
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 up by key if needed. (That is, %hash>>++ doesn't care about
> > the keys, %hash1 >>+<< %hash2 sums based on keys.) I would assume
> > t
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 shoul
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Jon Lang 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 can execute out
On 11/08/2010 01:51 AM, Darren Duncan wrote:
> Mason Kramer wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
> You present some interest
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
Darren Duncan wrote:
> However, if the above proposal is done, I would still want an easy way to
> get the value-count pairs from a bag if I wanted them.
I don't see any problem there. Mason's suggestion only deals with the
Bag as seen through the the lens of the Iterable role; when viewed as
a h
Mason Kramer wrote:
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.
You present some interesting thoughts here. But I don't have enough time to
think ab
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 brain
20 matches
Mail list logo