Duncan Patton wrote:
> 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.
In unix, the cherry on top is root.
In CODASYL databases it's OOAK (One Of A Kind).
In RM there is none.
Received on Fri Sep 02 2005 - 18:16:37 CDT
