Re: On Sets (Was: Re: On Junctions)

2009-03-29 Thread Jon Lang
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 1:18 PM, John Macdonald wrote: > On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 10:39:01AM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote: >> That happens because $pa and $pb are a singular value, and that's how >> junctions work... The blackjack program is an example for sets, not >> junctions. >> >> Now, what are j

Re: On Sets (Was: Re: On Junctions)

2009-03-29 Thread John Macdonald
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 10:39:01AM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote: > That happens because $pa and $pb are a singular value, and that's how > junctions work... The blackjack program is an example for sets, not > junctions. > > Now, what are junctions good for? They're good for situation where it's > col

Re: On Sets (Was: Re: On Junctions)

2009-03-28 Thread Jon Lang
Henry Baragar wrote: > The blackjack program is an excellent example for junctions (and not so good > for sets, IMHO).  The problem in the example above is that the calculation > of the value of a hand was not completed.  The complete calculation is as > follows: > >   my $pa = ([+] @a).eigenstates

Re: On Sets (Was: Re: On Junctions)

2009-03-28 Thread Henry Baragar
Daniel Ruoso wrote: But even to compare two hands it gets weird... my @a = 1|11, 9, 1|11; my @b = 6,9,6; my $pa = [+] @a; my $pb = [+] @b; if ($pa <= 21 && $pb <= 21) { if ($pa > $pb) { # B0RK3D } } That happens because $pa and $pb are a singular value, and that's how junctions

Re: On Sets (Was: Re: On Junctions)

2009-03-28 Thread Jon Lang
Thomas Sandlaß wrote: > Set operations are with parens. Which Synopsis is this in? -- Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang

Re: On Sets (Was: Re: On Junctions)

2009-03-28 Thread Jon Lang
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Daniel Ruoso wrote: > Em Sáb, 2009-03-28 às 13:36 +0300, Richard Hainsworth escreveu: >> Daniel Ruoso wrote: >> > The thing is that junctions are so cool that people like to use it for >> > more things than it's really usefull (overseeing that junctions are too >>

Re: On Sets (Was: Re: On Junctions)

2009-03-28 Thread TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)
HaloO, On Friday, 27. March 2009 12:57:49 Daniel Ruoso wrote: > 1 - multi infix:<+>(Set $set, Num $a) > This would return another set, with each value of $set summed with $a. I think that this mixed case should numify the set to the number of elements to comply with array semantics. infix:<+> sho

Re: On Sets (Was: Re: On Junctions)

2009-03-28 Thread Daniel Ruoso
Em Sáb, 2009-03-28 às 13:36 +0300, Richard Hainsworth escreveu: > Daniel Ruoso wrote: > > The thing is that junctions are so cool that people like to use it for > > more things than it's really usefull (overseeing that junctions are too > > much powerfull for that uses, meaning it will lead to unex

Re: On Sets (Was: Re: On Junctions)

2009-03-28 Thread Richard Hainsworth
Daniel Ruoso wrote: The thing is that junctions are so cool that people like to use it for more things than it's really usefull (overseeing that junctions are too much powerfull for that uses, meaning it will lead to unexpected behaviors at some point). What are the general boundaries for jun

Re: On Sets (Was: Re: On Junctions)

2009-03-27 Thread Mark J. Reed
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Mark J. Reed wrote: > Given two > junctions $d and $p, just adding $d + $p gives you all the possible > sums of the eigenstates.  Given two sets D and P, is there an equally > simple op to generate { d + p : d ∈ D, p ∈ } ? Dropped a P there - should be { d + p :

Re: On Sets (Was: Re: On Junctions)

2009-03-27 Thread Mark J. Reed
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Moritz Lenz wrote: > Mark J. Reed wrote: >> From a high-level perspective, the blackjack example seems perfect for >> junctions.  An Ace isn't a set of values - its one or the other at a >> time.  It seems to me if you can't make it work with junctions - f you >>

Re: On Sets (Was: Re: On Junctions)

2009-03-27 Thread Moritz Lenz
Mark J. Reed wrote: > From a high-level perspective, the blackjack example seems perfect for > junctions. An Ace isn't a set of values - its one or the other at a > time. It seems to me if you can't make it work with junctions - f you > have to use sets instead - then there's something wrong with

Re: On Sets (Was: Re: On Junctions)

2009-03-27 Thread Daniel Ruoso
Em Sex, 2009-03-27 às 09:17 -0400, Mark J. Reed escreveu: > From a high-level perspective, the blackjack example seems perfect for > junctions. An Ace isn't a set of values - its one or the other at a > time. It seems to me if you can't make it work with junctions - f you > have to use sets inste

Re: On Sets (Was: Re: On Junctions)

2009-03-27 Thread Mark J. Reed
>From a high-level perspective, the blackjack example seems perfect for junctions. An Ace isn't a set of values - its one or the other at a time. It seems to me if you can't make it work with junctions - f you have to use sets instead - then there's something wrong with the implementation of junc

Re: On Sets (Was: Re: On Junctions)

2009-03-27 Thread Daniel Ruoso
Em Sex, 2009-03-27 às 08:57 -0300, Daniel Ruoso escreveu: > So I get that we do need some cool support for sets as well, I mean... > no collapsing, no autothreading... but maybe some specific behaviors... As an aditional idea... multi infix:<⋃>(Set $a, Set $b) {...} multi infix:<⋂>(Set $a, Set $b