Michele Dondi wrote:
> OTOH all these discussions seem to imply that there is some demand (by
> me, for one!) for a "set-like" builtin data-type as well as for the
> already existing hashes and junctions and of course for
> interoperability between any two of them, e.g. in terms of automatic
> c
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 10:32:15PM -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: ...then you've got the notion of Fuzzy Logic Sets, where the key would be
[snip]
But using values for degree of membership is an interesting idea.
On the other hand, if we ever have numeric datat
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, Jonathan Lang wrote:
There are a couple of problems: first, a hash's keys are limited to
strings; a set ought to be able to handle a wider range of data types.
Well, if I had learnt something about Perl6 it is that it is no longer
necessarily so.
Michele
--
It's also amazing
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 10:32:15PM -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: ...then you've got the notion of Fuzzy Logic Sets, where the key would be
: the prospective element and the value would be the degree of membership.
: For fuzzy sets, hashes seem to be a better fit than junctions, which have
: no obv
Jonathan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are a couple of problems: first, a hash's keys are limited to
> strings; a set ought to be able to handle a wider range of data types.
Last time I checked, there was going to be a way to declare a
different data type for the key (which could easily
Larry Wall wrote:
> Michele Dondi wrote:
> : Jonathan Lang wrote:
> : > > If we want Sets in Perl, we should have proper Sets.
> : >
> : > I'll agree, depending on what you mean by "proper". I'd be
> : > interested in having some means to perform set operations in perl6:
> : > unions, intersectio
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 03:07:34PM +0100, Michele Dondi wrote:
: On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Jonathan Lang wrote:
:
: >> If we want Sets in Perl, we should have proper Sets.
: >
: >I'll agree, depending on what you mean by "proper". I'd be interested in
: >having some means to perform set operations i
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Jonathan Lang wrote:
If we want Sets in Perl, we should have proper Sets.
I'll agree, depending on what you mean by "proper". I'd be interested in
having some means to perform set operations in perl6: unions,
intersections, differences, membership checks, and subset/superse
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Maybe "set" should be an operator akin to "any", "all", "one", and "none",
at least in terms of "&" and "|". That is, if junctions are special cases
of sets, why not allow for the creation of generic sets in much the same
way? Then you could have:
# $A and $B are sets,
unio
Rod Adams wrote:
> Now that I've gotten some feedback from my original message (on list and
> off), and have had some time to think about it some more, I've come to
> some conclusions:
>
>Junctions are Sets. (if not, they would make more sense if they
> were.)
As pointed out elsewhere, Junc
10 matches
Mail list logo
