Yes, exactly. I meant that the strategy of just checking the
canonical element would have the problem I described -- having an
operation for that would fix it.
Sam
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> I understood you to be asking for something like this:
>
> (check-equal?
I understood you to be asking for something like this:
(check-equal? (uf-same-set? (uf-new 1) (uf-new 2)) #f)
(check-equal? (uf-same-set? (uf-new 1) (uf-new 1)) #f)
(check-equal? (let ([a (uf-new 1)]
[b (uf-new 1)])
(uf-union! a b)
(u
Thanks. That's a bug.
uf-set-canonical! changes the canonical element of the set (without
affecting the identity of the set).
Robby
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Danny Yoo wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Robby Findler
> wrote:
> > I've just pushed an implementation of the union-
But wouldn't that equate two un-unioned invocations of (uf-new 1)?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Robby Findler
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
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Danny Yoo wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Robby Findler
> 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 litt
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
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>
>> This is probably a silly question, but don't you also need some way to
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt 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
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Robby Findler
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.
More code r
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?
Sam
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> I've just pushed an implementation of the union-find algorithm to the data/
> collection.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Robby Findler
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.
Code review
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
