Browse thread
RE: [Caml-list] Efficient and canonical set representation?
-
Fred Smith
-
Samuel Lacas
- Eray Ozkural
-
Samuel Lacas
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | 2003-11-08 (16:50) |
| From: | Eray Ozkural <exa@k...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Efficient and canonical set representation? |
On Friday 07 November 2003 17:44, Samuel Lacas wrote: > Hmm, except that, if I'm not wrong, it was required the structure to > hold any kind of object. Sorted arrays require the elements to be > sortable. Using the hash of the objects may be an answer ? You can give a number to each member object I guess in a lot of cases. But of course, in general a set doesn't mean "set of sortable objects". Regards, -- Eray Ozkural (exa) <erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr> Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara KDE Project: http://www.kde.org www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo Malfunction: http://mp3.com/ariza GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners