please ignore my previous message. i think that my mind was trapped in an
alternate dimension :)
peter
Peter Buckingham wrote:
>
> James Mastros wrote:
> >
> [..]
> >
> > f("+123,456")=123456
> > f(f("+123,456))=123456
> >
> >
James Mastros wrote:
>
[..]
>
> f("+123,456")=123456
> f(f("+123,456))=123456
>
> The functon is not idempotent. Even if you checked f(x)==x (function is the
> identity), an input of "123456" would work.
just a comment on this, we are talking about sorting which would generally
mean that the
> >could you not try a simple test (not guaranteed to be 100% accurate
> >though),
> >by copying the first data element and apply it twice and then check to see
> >that the result of applying it once is the same as applying it twice.
>
> Feels a little too magic to me, and awfully fragile. I'm n
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> At 09:50 PM 3/26/2001 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
[..]
> >I'd think /perl/ should complain if your comparison function isn't
> >idempotent (if warnings on, of course). If nothing else, it's probably an
> >indicator that you should be using that schwartz thang.
>
> If y
Philip Newton wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2000, at 14:06, John Porter wrote:
>
> > I am of the opinion that any documentation which requires, or at least
> > would significantly benefit from, the use of something heavy like SGML
> > is best done OUTSIDE THE CODE. There's no reason you can't have
> > docum
Glenn Linderman wrote:
>
> Nathan, thanks for zeroing in on this paragraph from RFC 23. It raises a
> question in my mind about the meaning of the RFC, and whether the paragraph is
> even necessary, which could answer your question about implementation.
>
> If a curried subroutine is truly gene
