From carl at witthoft.com  Sun Feb  9 14:07:51 2014
From: carl at witthoft.com (Carl Witthoft)
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 08:07:51 -0500
Subject: [Rd] suggestion for "sets" tools upgrade
In-Reply-To: <21239.19601.645124.801661@fangorn.hornik.net>
References: <52F43764.8060301@witthoft.com>	<52F4D38D.4070608@gmail.com>	<52F54BFC.2010608@witthoft.com>
	<21239.19601.645124.801661@fangorn.hornik.net>
Message-ID: <52F77DA7.1020505@witthoft.com>

No, I wasn't, so thanks for pointing me to that package.  I think I'll 
still post my new toys, because "sets"  fails the "obvious for dummies" 
test.  I looked at the documentation, and while it's clearly a very 
powerful collection of functions, it's not obvious exactly what the 
family of "cset_*" tools do or don't do.
The stuff I'm writing is,  I hope :-), much easier to learn and remember 
for the casual or occasional user.   De gustibus non disputandum applies 
here.

Carl


On 2/9/14 4:38 AM, Kurt Hornik wrote:
>>>>>> Carl Witthoft writes:
>
>> Thanks to Duncan and all who responded.
>> I agree that the algebraic set rules do not allow for indistinguishable
>> elements;  I must have been deeply immersed in quantum fermions when I
>> wrote "strictly" rather than "less" in front of "algebraic style.
>
>> I'll clean up my code (so that intersect() remains symmetric, among
>> other things) , and submit as a separate package to CRAN.
>
>> Carl
>
> Btw, you are aware of the "sets" package on CRAN (which does the
> multisets I think you were asking for)?
>
> Best
> -k

-- 

Sent from a parallel universe almost, but not entirely,
nothing at all like this one.



[Rd] suggestion for "sets" tools upgrade
Carl Witthoft