Anonymous user
Talk:Set consolidation: Difference between revisions
→Haskell: Output is ok
(→Sets of Sets: new section) |
(→Haskell: Output is ok) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 28:
This task specifies an intermediate result which can be a set or which can be a set of sets. But this can become ambiguous if the input is a set of sets of sets. I think it would be better if the task stuck with one level of abstraction for intermediate results (if arguments and all intermediate results were a set of sets). --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 22:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
:Hi Rdm, think of the intermediate as being consistently a set of set'''s''' where the number of set'''s''' can equal one; or more. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 07:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
:: I did :) --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 17:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
== Haskell ==
Is the Haskell version producing the right output for example 4?
--[[User:Soegaard|Soegaard]] ([[User talk:Soegaard|talk]]) 18:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
:Without any output, I cannot tell. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 19:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
:The output looks fine to me. --[[User:AndiPersti|Andreas Perstinger]] ([[User talk:AndiPersti|talk]]) 17:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
| |||