There's a bug in intersect function:

- Code: Select all
`$ newlisp`

newLISP v.10.5.4 64-bit on OSX IPv4/6 UTF-8, options: newlisp -h

> (set 'a '(2 2))

(2 2)

> (set 'b '(2 2 2))

(2 2 2)

> (intersect a b true)

(2 2)

> (intersect b a true)

(2 2 2)

8 posts
• Page **1** of **1**

Hi, if there's a dedicated bug tracker for newLISP please let me know and I'll repost it there.

There's a bug in intersect function:

There's a bug in intersect function:

- Code: Select all
`$ newlisp`

newLISP v.10.5.4 64-bit on OSX IPv4/6 UTF-8, options: newlisp -h

> (set 'a '(2 2))

(2 2)

> (set 'b '(2 2 2))

(2 2 2)

> (intersect a b true)

(2 2)

> (intersect b a true)

(2 2 2)

- tadeas
**Posts:**3**Joined:**Tue Mar 04, 2014 8:32 am

Hi tadeas. Is that a bug?

- cormullion
**Posts:**2037**Joined:**Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:28 pm**Location:**latiitude 50N longitude 3W

Now that I read intersect documentation again it looks like this behavior is correct.

But, then, intersect function is not doing an intersection (on the other hand nobody says it should). From what I remember from studies, intersection of {1 2 2 2 3} and {2 2} is unambiguously {2 2} .

In the second syntax, intersect returns a list of all elements in list-A that are also in list-B, without eliminating duplicates in list-A

But, then, intersect function is not doing an intersection (on the other hand nobody says it should). From what I remember from studies, intersection of {1 2 2 2 3} and {2 2} is unambiguously {2 2} .

- tadeas
**Posts:**3**Joined:**Tue Mar 04, 2014 8:32 am

Perhaps there are some variations in the definition of intersection...

With this definition: "All the elements of set A that are in set B":

it looks correct. But "All the elements of set B that are in set A" should be returning '(2 2). Trouble is, A and B aren't sets... :)

With this definition: "All the elements of set A that are in set B":

- Code: Select all
`(intersect '(1 2 2 2 3) '(2 2) true)`

;-> (2 2 2)

it looks correct. But "All the elements of set B that are in set A" should be returning '(2 2). Trouble is, A and B aren't sets... :)

- cormullion
**Posts:**2037**Joined:**Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:28 pm**Location:**latiitude 50N longitude 3W

When elements in the participating sets are unique, intersect works like the algebraic intersection and the position of sets in the expression is commutative. When not using the true parameter, lists are converted into unique collections sets.

Almost always intersect is used in newLISP to make a selection of elements in one set depending of elements in another set. The positions in the intersect expression are not commutative when elements in a set are not unique. This and the true parameter give us more possibilities selecting elements than using pure algebraic intersection on unique collections.

Almost always intersect is used in newLISP to make a selection of elements in one set depending of elements in another set. The positions in the intersect expression are not commutative when elements in a set are not unique. This and the true parameter give us more possibilities selecting elements than using pure algebraic intersection on unique collections.

- Lutz
**Posts:**5279**Joined:**Thu Sep 26, 2002 4:45 pm**Location:**Pasadena, California

Very well, this is not a bug.

I made two mistakes:

1) I didn't properly read intersect documentation so I expected it to do something a bit different.

2) I didn't realize that the algebraic intersection doesn't really make sense on lists with the same element more times.

I'm sorry guys.

I made two mistakes:

1) I didn't properly read intersect documentation so I expected it to do something a bit different.

2) I didn't realize that the algebraic intersection doesn't really make sense on lists with the same element more times.

I'm sorry guys.

- tadeas
**Posts:**3**Joined:**Tue Mar 04, 2014 8:32 am

No worries - it made me read that part of the manual again, so I gained something too... :)

- cormullion
**Posts:**2037**Joined:**Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:28 pm**Location:**latiitude 50N longitude 3W

What cormullion said. :)

I'm not a beginner at newLISP, and I learned something. Thanks for your post, tadeas!

I'm not a beginner at newLISP, and I learned something. Thanks for your post, tadeas!

(λx. x x) (λx. x x)

- rickyboy
**Posts:**594**Joined:**Fri Apr 08, 2005 7:13 pm**Location:**Front Royal, Virginia

8 posts
• Page **1** of **1**

Return to newLISP in the real world

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group