1. Re: [If/then and sequences...]
Agreed Matt. I'll never support a greater_than/less_than function. In fact,
I can't understand the rationale behind compare() and equal() either. To me,
it seems a lot more intuitive just to use the '=', '<', '>' symbols with
sequences. I can't understand Robert's idea that using these symbols with
sequences is a bad thing.
So what's the big deal with ...
sequence A,B
if A = B then ....
I know the rules say that '=' only works with atoms, but why have this
restriction, given that people already use the "work around" called
compare() ?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Lewis" <MatthewL at KAPCOUSA.COM>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 7:33 AM
Subject: Re: [If/then and sequences...]
> I can understand the utility of this, but we already have this with
compare.
> OK, OK, technically, we could say the same thing about equal(), but
>
> if not compare( a, b) then
> ...
> end if
>
> seems a lot more confusing than
>
> if compare(a,b) < 0 then -- meaning a<0
>
> And I don't think there's as much demand for the greater or less functions
> than there is for equal.
>
> Matt Lewis
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Derek Parnell
> >
> > It gives us a way of arbitrarily, yet consistently, ordering a set of
> > sequences. In other words, it enables us to know with 100%
> > accuracy, where a
> > given sequence is in an ordered set of sequences. The rules
> > employed to
> > determine which of two sequences comes first is arguably
> > immaterial, as long
> > as they always work the same way.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ben Fosberg" <BenFosberg at ATT.NET>
> >
> > > What does it mean to say that one sequence is "greater
> > than" or "less
> > than" another sequence,
> > > given that the constituent "elements" of a sequence could
> > be of any data
> > type, including
> > > other sequences?
> > >
