You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When we turned a bunch of former library blocks into primitives, some variadic ones should have been added to COMBINE's list of base cases:
Don't forget that in COMBINATIONS the base case result isn't empty:
COMBINE also lost the base cases of some formerly dyadic blocks that have become variadic:
These latter ones are sort of important even though I gave this a "low priority" label, because I think we use them in BJC.
These are all the ones I found but I didn't carefully check every block.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
thanks!
(although I'm 100% sure that we've never in the past special-cased those base-cases in any version of combine, so I'm having a hard time believing that BJC teaches about them).
Will try to fix it!
Umm okay I guess what I meant is that BJC uses COMBINE USING AND/OR, not that it does so with empty lists; of course if you know the list is empty you don't need COMBINE at all. It's just that you run the risk that a list might turn out to be empty in an unusual situation that still isn't a (user) bug, e.g., COMBINE (KEEP ...) USING AND.
When we turned a bunch of former library blocks into primitives, some variadic ones should have been added to COMBINE's list of base cases:
Don't forget that in COMBINATIONS the base case result isn't empty:
COMBINE also lost the base cases of some formerly dyadic blocks that have become variadic:
These latter ones are sort of important even though I gave this a "low priority" label, because I think we use them in BJC.
These are all the ones I found but I didn't carefully check every block.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: