💾 Archived View for oortcloud.flounder.online › junk › 1finmaps.gmi captured on 2024-03-21 at 14:46:42. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

⬅️ Previous capture (2024-02-05)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Prev

finite maps are sets of rows and hence have a partial order

m <= n := m.x ~ n.x

finite map (as data) lookup is the same as finite map (as fun) application

m x := m.x NB. (m`) == (m.)
{Nuts} <= (m && n) <= m <= (m || n) <= {Null}	

application is not only continuous, but determined by atoms; in particular this implies that keys should be elements (and that the elemental maps are the functions)

(m|n) x == m x | n x
m (x|y) == m x | m y
x ~ y ==> m x ~ m y		NB. fun by def
m ~ n ==> m x ~ n x

(m&n) x == m x & n x
m (x&y) ~ m x & m y

use (%*) to give sequences of keys a map action, chaining lookup

m %* (k, l) := (m %* k) %* l
m %* k := m.k
m %* Nil := m

(&&) and (||) behave as one would expect

m && m == m
m && n == n && m
m && (n && o) == (m && n) && o
{Null} && m == m
m && {Nuts} == {Nuts}

m || m == m
m || n == n || m
m || (n || o) == (m || n) || o
{Nuts} || m == m
m || {Null} == {Null}

(!!) is like (&&), but also operates on bare rows, packing them as singletons.

m !! k:v := m && {k:v}
{d} !! {k:v | j:w} <=> {d} !! (k:v) !! (j:w) 		NB. Action
{Nuts} !! {d} <=> {d}
{d} !! {Null} <=> {Null}

(::) combines symmetrically, with priority by specificity

a::a <=> a
a::b <=> b::a
a::(b::c) <=> (a::b)::c
{Null}::a <=> a
NB. no zero

{k: v} :: {k: w | j: u} <=> {k: v | j: u} <=> {k: w | j: u} :: {k: v}
{k: v} :: {Nuts} <=> {k: v}	NB. ({k: v} :: {Null}) == bare {k:v}

(//) combines asymmetrically, with priority to the left

{k: v} // {k: w | j: u} <=> {k: v | j: u}
{k: w | j: u} // {k: v} <=> {k: w | j: u}

a//a <=> a
a//{Null} == bare a	    NB. a//Nuts == Nuts
{Null}//a == {Null}
{Nuts}//a == a
a//{Nuts} == a
a//(b//c) == (a//b)//c

these operations are also available at (*) == (&&), (%) == (||), and (/) == (//)

OPEN: at least (//) needs to distribute over sequencing (for (<-) to behave properly in def'ns); are there reasons for or against the other synthetic ops doing so?

Yet another (commutative) action with map intersection

m && {k: v | j: w} == (m && {k: v}) && {j: w}

example

xor: {(True,True): False | (False,False): False 
     |(True,False): True | (False,True): True}

Next