--- Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Austin Hastings wrote: > > traits = any ( ... ) > > requirements = .. & .. > > if $requirements eq $traits > > > > Should that be traits = all()? > > No. Because later we say (effectively): > > print "True love\n" > if all(@desiderata) eq any(@traits) > > In other words we want *all* the desired characteristics to be > matched > by *some* trait. If the comparison was C<all(...) eq all(...)>, then > you're asking for every characteristic to be the same as every trait, > which obviously can't happen. > > This is just a case where the "logic" of English phraseology has > several implicit assumptions that computational logic can't just > fudge over.
Does this imply some sort of "depth matching" is required for these expressions? In this case, there's T = tall & dark & handsome D = (tall & dark & handsome) | (Australian) | (rich & old) So when I say: all(@desiderata) # I hated that ^[!]() poem does that implicitly "search down" until it finds a singleton (Australian) or a conjunction (old & rich)? And likewise does saying any(@traits) do some sort of implicit (de) construction looking for a singleton or a disjunction? Obviously, yes. So you're saying that the all() can't work at the a|b|c level, because that would be conjunctive disjunction. (Doc, tell me straight: how long do I have?) So the evaluation alternates through the possibilities, looking for a chance to apply "all". But on the other side, not all of the traits have to be "matched." It won't be fatal if the traits are tall & dark & handsome & socialist old & rich & fat Australian & impotent so long as some subset (ANY?) of the traits completely match ALL the desired bits. So I can't use "all(@traits)" because that would OVERSPECIFY. But I don't feel right using "any(@traits)" because that feels like either saying "traits[x] == all-these-things" which is wrong, or "traits was a list, like desiderata, which contains one of these" which is wrong, too. It's right to say "there is SOME trait in @traits that matches each @desiderata" But of course, SOME is "choose one", and that means "any". (BTW: Will there be an alternate build of p6 that does NOT depend on the axiom of choice?) Damian, your reward for this whole flexible values mess is to spend the rest of your life being retained by large companies to explain this stuff to blockheads like me. Welcome to hell. =Austin __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
