Re: PIZZA time again :-)

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 15:56:53 +0200
mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote:

> Paul wrote:
> > mAsterdam wrote:
> >
> >>Assume
> >>1. there is a meaningful (or at least consequential)
> >>difference between:
> >>
> >> toppings([salami, mozarella, onions]).
> >> and
> >> toppings([mozarella, onions, salami]).
> >
> > Of course there is. If you had the onions at the bottom, they would't
> > cook right, although as a BOM for billing, there's no problem.
>
> So, you agree assumption 1 has value. Good.
>
> Consider
>
> merge(ListOfLists, MergedList).
>
> Now
>
> merge ([[salami, mozarella, onions][mozarella, onions, salami]], M).
>
> should fail because salami is before mozarella in the first list,
> and after it in the second. It can't preserve the order.
>
>
> Should
>
> merge([[salami, buttonmushroom, mozarella, onions][salami, artichoke,
> mozarella]], M).
>
> succeed with
> M = [salami, buttonmushroom, artichoke, mozarella, onions]
> M = [salami, artichoke, buttonmushroom, mozarella, onions]
>
> or just the first one (because of the order of the lists)?

Which is the most truest answer me!!!

This is a "Whois fairest of them all", sort of thing, but has useful application if you can limit the semantic expression of underlying features to something simple and comprehensible. The problem becomes when something more is read into the order than went into the ordering. It's important to put the onions on top so they cook but when you get into voodoo over who should get the cherry on top, its mebbe time to skip the cherry.

Dhu

-- 
???????????????????????????????????????

Can't get good help?  

Contact Fubar the Hack: fubar AT neotext.ca

Area code seven eight zero, Exchange four six six, Local zero one zero nine

Highland terms, Canadian workmanship.

All persons named herein are purely fictional victims
of the Canidian Bagle Breeder's Association.

Save the Bagle! 

Sun Ðhu

???????????????????????????????????????