On Jun 9, 2009, at 8:49 PM, Richard Newman wrote:
> For now, as I'm storing maps in my sets -- I'm doing relational stuff, > after all -- I just add an :id entry in each map, filled by (iterate > inc 0). Functionally the same as a multiset, so long as I ignore > the :id 'column'... I am very fond of the relational functions in Clojure. That was one of the first things that started winning me over actually. Forgive me if this is an obvious question, but what exactly is the disadvantage of the add-an-id approach? Or, another way, what would be substantially better about having multisets over just doing what you're doing? My understanding of relational theory and SQL (thanks largely to Joe Celko's books) makes me suspicious of needing cardinality—it sounds a lot like wanting access to the physical ordering on disk. Then again, a lot of my database tables wind up with a sort-order column or an auto-incrementing ID, I admit. Of course, just because it violates relational theory doesn't mean it wouldn't be a great addition to the language. I'm curious. Would you mind sharing the code with the error for the calculation you're doing? — Daniel Lyons http://www.storytotell.org -- Tell It! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
