Autrijus Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 11:10:13AM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
>> No, consider
>>
>> $a = 1;
>> $b = 2;
>>
>> one($a, $a, $b) # false
>> one($b) # true
>
> Right. Evidently I need to sleep real soon. :-)
>
> However, is
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 06:34:05PM +0100, Eirik Berg Hanssen wrote:
> I think one([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]) is
> equivalent to all(none([EMAIL PROTECTED]),one([EMAIL PROTECTED])),
> which should permit an implementation using Sets without duplicate
> elements. Whe
On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 01:01:15AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 10:55:05AM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 12:09:37PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > - one() checks its operands for duplicates; if found, it collapses
> > >
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 12:09:37PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> [...]
> - one() checks its operands for duplicates; if found, it collapses
> itself into an empty one() junction, thus failing all tests.
> Is this somewhat saner? :-)
Depends on when it's checking its operands for duplicat
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 11:10:13AM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> No, consider
>
> $a = 1;
> $b = 2;
>
> one($a, $a, $b) # false
> one($b) # true
Right. Evidently I need to sleep real soon. :-)
However, is there a way to remove the $a from the equation? I'd like
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 10:55:05AM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 12:09:37PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> > [...]
> > - one() checks its operands for duplicates; if found, it collapses
> > itself into an empty one() junction, thus failing all tests.
> > Is thi
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 03:28:15AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> Yes. In Pugs 6.0.3 (released one minute ago), that operator is
> simply called "&":
I satnd corrected. The implementation is incorrect.
Pugs 6.0.4 has just been released (now with the "eval" primitive!),
it has cleaned up the coll
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 01:42:42PM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> This collapse is probably wrong. In particular,
>any($a, $b) & any($b, $c)
> is not the same as
>any($a, $b, $c)
Right. Teaches me that implementing nontrivial features on 3am
just-before-sleep is probably a bad id
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 03:28:15AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 09:42:06AM +, Thomas Yandell wrote:
> > Is there another operator that takes the intersection of two
> > junctions, such that any(2,3,4,5) *some op* any(4,5,6,7) would result
> > in any(4,5)?
>
> Yes. In
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 09:42:06AM +, Thomas Yandell wrote:
> Is there another operator that takes the intersection of two
> junctions, such that any(2,3,4,5) *some op* any(4,5,6,7) would result
> in any(4,5)?
Yes. In Pugs 6.0.3 (released one minute ago), that operator is
simply called "&":
10 matches
Mail list logo