[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: checking set intersection
This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 113 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 113 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
- To: srfi-113@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: checking set intersection
- From: Kevin Wortman <kwortman@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 20:45:06 -0800
- Delivered-to: srfi-113@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kkp2QeeNk7YOPLX6ORXYnbKb63k6VtNAt5mLoD06LHg=; b=LY+yD+0SERFWyBdzVHWlgH9jwlSPKNKwA/ZzWpc37zphe5Tq0IuWWNJgRN1I/He3u5 n3UQCcDW4MFnbuA2He6WhKgAcDfRGVoX3Vd2emz+85Fbr+mVDd/5BgLvkV/qX+6NeOY4 BVj3DMwjJfFmlHyv9efKKa1HJ3d5fTIMAvsVpoDJzIm6iHRywkMdk6ZvzWxzAUNpsvaR K0vCkbglhTEeofxEcsdFBXHF2DRVj7simsr3ZkZC6UPFq9BA2b+XOp0yXgeGSbuFyXzG SaPmlnqGN29VrmT9v49COzR157a5OHIrYy5p/+OSdoYLgAKuvQy29ICr1GnsRP25mobo 3SYQ==
- In-reply-to: <CAMMPzYOPJEbsSe6vdQZa1=5Lu6oKoPtSxzdWV_KaN-HpikyPwA@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAMMPzYOPJEbsSe6vdQZa1=5Lu6oKoPtSxzdWV_KaN-HpikyPwA@mail.gmail.com>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
On 12/19/2013 04:25 PM, Alex Shinn wrote:
> I've had uses for testing whether two sets
> intersect without needing the actual
> intersection, so I think the following would
> be useful:
> (define (set-intersects? a b)
> (positive? (set-size (set-intersection a b))))
> though it could be implemented much
> more efficiently.
> I was originally going to write this as
> (not (set-empty? ...))
> but realized there was no such predicate.
> We might want to include that as well.
This is a good point and I second the request for set-intersects? and
set-empty?. Both should be easy enough to implement.
We already have predicates for set equality, subsets, proper subsets,
and are now discussing intersection. We might as well add a
set-disjoint? predicate too so that all the fundamental set
relationships are represented.