2006/4/4, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I don't follow. Why is that the representation of any(1,2,3)? Is
> this a disjunctive normal form; i.e. is 2 < any(1,2,3) equivalent to
> the test:
>
> 2 < 1
> || 2 < 2
> || 2 < 3
> || 2 < 1 && 2 < 2
> || ...
2 < 1
| 2 < 2
| 2 < 3
whic
On 4/4/06, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On the other hand, if junctions really are sets of sets, then maybe it's
> a mistake to autocoerce junctions to sets by swiping their internal set
> of values. Arguably any(1,2,3) should coerce not to
>
> (1,2,3)
>
> but to
>
> (
>
On 4/4/06, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 09:16:23AM -0400, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
>
Junctions are not intended for that use. We have Sets for that now.
Ok. So this will work out of the box if you use the right tool. Cool.
The cabal already decided once (in
On the other hand, if junctions really are sets of sets, then maybe it's
a mistake to autocoerce junctions to sets by swiping their internal set
of values. Arguably any(1,2,3) should coerce not to
(1,2,3)
but to
(
(1),
(2),
(3),
(1,2),
(1,3),
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 09:16:23AM -0400, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
: Almost a year ago (2005-04-27), I wrote the list asking a question about
: junctions.
: Specifically, the ability to find the intersection, union, etc of a list.
Junctions are not intended for that use. We have Sets for that now.
J
