TSa wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
> Would (1,2,2,3,4,4) be a Seq or a Bag?
Comma constructs a Seq, of course.
The context of the question was that you provided the above as the
result of unioning two Seqs; as such, I was trying to find out whether
you meant that the union of two Seqs should be a
HaloO,
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Would (1,2,2,3,4,4) be a Seq or a Bag?
Comma constructs a Seq, of course.
IMHO, the _only_ way this
could work would be if it's a Bag: if it's a Seq, I see no way that
one could resolve '(1,2,3) ∪ (3,1,2)'.
This is not any different from '3' + '4' resulting in
TSa wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
> Note that this would mean that Seq would also have set operations.
I count this as an advantage. So one can write (1,2,3) (|) (2,2,3,4,4)
to get a result of (1,2,2,3,4,4). As long as the Seq is a Set, that is
it has no duplicates, you get Set behavior through th
HaloO,
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Note that this would mean that Seq would also have set operations.
I count this as an advantage. So one can write (1,2,3) (|) (2,2,3,4,4)
to get a result of (1,2,2,3,4,4). As long as the Seq is a Set, that is
it has no duplicates, you get Set behavior through the Ba
TSa wrote:
1) It is a multiset generalization of Set
2) It is a supertype of Set and Seq (a Set can of course be build
from a Seq). That is 'Set does Bag' and 'Seq does Bag'. Note
that a Seq is a ready-made Bag and if it happens to have no
duplicates it behaves like a Set.
3) It has s
At 7:08 PM + 11/28/06, Smylers wrote:
TSa writes:
I want to propose the addition of a Bag type
Different from the C that's already mentioned in Synopsis 3?
Smylers
TSa wasn't the first person to ask for an explicit Bag type. I did
too, a few weeks ago. And one reason for that was exa
TSa writes:
> I want to propose the addition of a Bag type
Different from the C that's already mentioned in Synopsis 3?
Smylers
