The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
Tuang wrote:No, they're about the same.
> Both of these replies (thank you, BTW) seem to be saying that the
> result of performing an intersection on lists containing duplicate
> members is undefined, at least with respect to the number of
> duplicates that may show up in the result. That's a much stronger
> statement than the "may have duplicates" line in the spec.
> The spec made a big point about how "nintersection" was destructive toNo, the spec does not say that nintersection is destructive
> one of its inputs,
to list-1. It says it *may* be destructive. This is an important
difference: a conforming program cannot count on the first list
being modified. The implementation has the freedom to modify it,
but it not required to do so. Making nintersection do exactly the
same thing as intersection would be acceptable in a conforming
implemention of Common Lisp.
> I didn't think "may have duplicates" would imply "theWhere did it say they had to be the same? This is not stated
> number of members in the result is so undefined that even within the
> same implementation the length of X i'sect Y isn't guaranteed to be
> the same as the length of Y i'sect X.
in the spec, so why were you imagining it is required?
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.