Thank you, I eventually tried to go with this approad, after a few people's recommendations. But, like you mentioned in your post, now I find myself needing a notion of subset relations, and since you obviously can't define equality over functions, i'm stuck again. Do you know any way around this problem, or have i hit a dead end...?
stijn. On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:50:24 +0100, Ben Rudiak-Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One idea that might not occur to a newcomer is to represent each set by > a function with a type like (Double -> Bool), implementing the set > membership operation. This makes set-theoretic operations easy: the > complement of s is not.s (though watch out for NaNs!), the union of s > and t is (\x -> s x || t x), and so on. Open, closed, and half-open > intervals are easy too. The big limitation of this representation is > that there's no way to inspect a set except by testing particular values > for membership, but depending on your application this may not be a problem. > > -- Ben > > _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
