But wouldn't that equate two un-unioned invocations of (uf-new 1)?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Robby Findler <[email protected]> wrote: > But I should probably provide that, since it can be done more reliably > inside the library. > > Robby > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Robby Findler <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> This is probably a silly question, but don't you also need some way to >>> check if two sets have been unioned? Does your application not need >>> that? >>> >> >> You check to see if their canonical element is the same. >> >> Robby >> >>> >>> Sam >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Robby Findler >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > I've just pushed an implementation of the union-find algorithm to the >>> > data/ >>> > collection. I didn't do it quite the way wikipedia recommends, but >>> > instead >>> > made the sets be little containers whose canonical element can be >>> > mutated. >>> > >>> > This suits my purposes well, but I wanted to ask if someone on the list >>> > knows why the wikipedia way is better. >>> > >>> > Also, I wasn't sure about the names, so I put "uf-" on the front of >>> > everything to discourage people from using this when they really want >>> > racket/set. Maybe there is a better way, tho? >>> > >>> > Robby >>> > >>> > >>> > _________________________ >>> > Racket Developers list: >>> > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev >>> > >> >> > _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
