<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:samth@ccs.neu.edu" target="_blank">samth@ccs.neu.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">This is probably a silly question, but don't you also need some way to<br> check if two sets have been unioned? Does your application not need<br> that?<br> <br></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>You check to see if their canonical element is the same.</div><div style><br></div><div style>Robby</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Sam<br> <div class="im"><br> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Robby Findler<br> <<a href="mailto:robby@eecs.northwestern.edu">robby@eecs.northwestern.edu</a>> wrote:<br> </div><div><div class="h5">> I've just pushed an implementation of the union-find algorithm to the data/<br> > collection. I didn't do it quite the way wikipedia recommends, but instead<br> > made the sets be little containers whose canonical element can be mutated.<br> ><br> > This suits my purposes well, but I wanted to ask if someone on the list<br> > knows why the wikipedia way is better.<br> ><br> > Also, I wasn't sure about the names, so I put "uf-" on the front of<br> > everything to discourage people from using this when they really want<br> > racket/set. Maybe there is a better way, tho?<br> ><br> > Robby<br> ><br> ><br> </div></div>> _________________________<br> > Racket Developers list:<br> > <a href="http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev" target="_blank">http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev</a><br> ><br> </blockquote></div><br></div></div>