Larry Wall wrote:
> You're confusing the map with the territory. We're trying to decide
> *how* Junctions are like Sets, not defining them into two different
> universes. I'm saying that all() is the Junction tha is most like
> a Set. A none() Junction can be viewed as the specification for an
>
2006/4/4, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> But this is all based on enumerated sets. Oddly missing are any
> Sets that are defined by rule. That would presumably take closures,
> though I suppose one can attempt to enumerate the closures that have
> to hold true and autothread through the calls
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 11:23:14AM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: > On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 11:02:55AM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: > : Will perl6 Sets include set negation and/or a universal set? In
: > : effect, an internal flag that says, "this set contains every possible
:
Larry Wall wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 11:02:55AM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
> : Will perl6 Sets include set negation and/or a universal set? In
> : effect, an internal flag that says, "this set contains every possible
> : element _except_ the ones listed"?
>
> Arguably, that's what none() i
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 12:02:55 -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
> Will perl6 Sets include set negation and/or a universal set? In
> effect, an internal flag that says, "this set contains every possible
> element _except_ the ones listed"?
Sure! How else will we implement the garbage collector?
;-)
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 11:02:55AM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: Will perl6 Sets include set negation and/or a universal set? In
: effect, an internal flag that says, "this set contains every possible
: element _except_ the ones listed"?
Arguably, that's what none() is. And all() is the only jun
