ftp.cs.arizona.edu/ftp.cs.arizona.edu.tar/ftp.cs.arizona.edu/icon/newsgrp/group97a.txt/000118_icon-group-sender _Wed Apr 16 00:13:55 1997.msg

Internet Message Format | 2000-09-20 | 1KB

Received: from kingfisher.CS.Arizona.EDU by cheltenham.cs.arizona.edu; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 16:57:00 MST
Received: by kingfisher.CS.Arizona.EDU; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/08Nov94-0446PM)
    id AA02428; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 16:57:00 -0700
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 00:13:55 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Iain Alexander)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Records in Icon
X-Mailer: PCElm 1.10
Lines: 27
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Status: RO
Content-Length: 815

A further thought:
In message <[e-mail]> Steve Wampler writes:
> Do you care why the two records 'match'?  That is, do you need to
> distinguish between your two example cases, or is it sufficient to
> simply say "the records 'match'"?
>
> Here's a procedure that handles the latter case:
>
> procedure weakMatch(r1,r2)
>     return !r1 ~=== !r2
> end

If you want a bit more information about which items matched,
I think you can do something like

procedure indexMatch(l1, l2)
    if l1[i:= 1 to *l1] === l2[j:= 1 to *l2]
    then return [i, j]
end

(and if you wanted to allow for multiple matches, you could
change it to
    suspend l1[i:= 1 to *l1] === l2[j:= 1 to *l2] & [i, j]
)
--
Iain Alexander               PGP 1024-bit key id B501A0AD
[e-mail]   [e-mail]