|Version||alpha 112||Category||Native||Submitted by||Sunanda|
|Summary||UNION looks broken with /skip and type mixing|
UNION/skip doesn't perform the union if there is more than one type in the collection of values in the first positions of the fixed records; it just returns a copy of the first argument. If all of the first-position values are the same datatype it does the same thing as the other series-of-fixed-records functions that do comparisons.
See #428 for the discussion of what the proper comparison behavior of these kinds of functions should be. However, in this case we have an additional bug beyond that discussion, where it isn't even doing a union at all in the mixed-type comparison case.
>> union [x x 1 2 1 3] [1 4] == [x 1 2 3 4] ; as expected >> union [1 2 1 3] [1 4] == [1 2 3 4] ; as expected >> union/skip [x x 1 2 1 3] [1 4] 2 == [x x 1 2 1 3] ; should be [x x 1 2 1 3 1 4], union not performed >> union/skip [x x 1 2 1 2] [1 4] 2 == [x x 1 2 1 2] ; should be [x x 1 2 1 4], just a copy of the first arg >> union/skip [1 2 1 3] [2 4] 2 == [1 2 2 4] ; should be [1 2 1 3 2 4], union performed but bad R2-compatible behavior (see #428)
|Assigned to||n/a||Fixed in||-||Last Update||2-Mar-2013 08:39|
Frankly, I would expect to obtain
[x x 1 2 1 3 1 4]
as the result.
That is because for me [1 2] [1 3] and [1 4] are distinct.
They would be distinct without /skip.
/skip in all the set operations (DIFFERENCE, INTERSECT, UNION etc) has a specific meaning, somewhat like MAP.
The first value is effectively treated as the key, and the subsequent ones are ignored for the purposes of treating records as distinct.
So the line below results in an empty block in R2 -- the two input blocks are not different within REBOL's operating definitions.
DIFFERENCE/SKIP [1 x x 2 y y] [1 a a 2 b b] 3
Maybe that needs to change with R3 -- but it would be a big change for the operational model
(R3 gets this one wrong too .... Probably the same underlying bug)
I agree with Ladislav. See #428 for a suggestion of a /compare option (like SORT/compare) to make it only pay attention to certain record positions rather than the whole record.
It's worth noting that SORT/compare might also not work correctly in R3, and SORT itself definitely doesn't (#1152 among others). So, it's probably a better idea to discuss what we should be doing rather than trying to be compatible with SORT in R3 or R2.
I would rather expect [x x 1 2 1 3 1 4] as well, but then UNIQUE/skip also implements the "key" behaviour Sunanda describes. I see both behaviours as useful.
For reference, here's the (relevant) R3 functions coming with a /skip refinement:
It's probably worth looking over them for consistency in /SKIP usage.
The /COMPARE suggestion from #428 seems like a good idea to let us have both behaviours.
Although there may be a philosophical / design issue to discuss here, please note that R3 follows the R2 model in most cases, eg:
difference/skip [ 1 2] [1 3] 2
The specific bug seems to emerge when the blocks contain unset words:
difference/skip [x x 1 2] [1 3] 2
== [x x]
That bug needs fixing even if the R2 reference implementation is later changed in some way.
Good catch on the unset words thing, that is definitely something that can be fixed quickly.
Keep in mind, Sunanda, that the policy of R3 is to follow the R2 behavior only when there isn't significantly better behavior to follow. Compatibility for compatibility's sake is covered by #666. Our goal is to be better, but significantly better - we don't want to be different for the sake of being different either (see #667).
In the case of the of the /skip option for functions that do series comparison, I can assure you that if R3 follows R2's behavior it is because we haven't had this discussion yet, because we haven't had this discussion yet. So let's discuss it now. If R2's behavior or some variant of it wins (on its own merits) then we'll make sure it works, and that we don't get any more #1152 style errors.
Let's have this ticket be about the unset words issue, and move the general /skip comparison behavior policy discussion to #428.
Earlier issue reporting similar thing:
"Let's have this ticket be about the unset words issue"
If this ticket ought to be about unset words alone, please someone with the power to do so: adapt/rephrase it.
|Done. And further testing revealed that it was mixed-type comparisons, not unset words.|
|2-Mar-2013 08:47||BrianH||Comment : 0003557||Modified||-|
|2-Mar-2013 08:39||BrianH||Comment : 0003557||Added||-|
|2-Mar-2013 08:39||BrianH||Status||Modified||submitted => reviewed|
|2-Mar-2013 08:39||BrianH||Category||Modified||Unspecified => Native|
|2-Mar-2013 08:39||BrianH||Summary||Modified||UNION looks broken with /skip => UNION looks broken with /skip and type mixing|
|2-Mar-2013 01:48||abolka||Comment : 0003554||Added||-|
|1-Mar-2013 12:25||sunanda||Comment : 0003548||Added||-|
|26-Feb-2013 20:14||BrianH||Comment : 0003511||Added||-|
|26-Feb-2013 10:08||sunanda||Comment : 0003505||Added||-|
|26-Feb-2013 01:05||BrianH||Comment : 0003503||Modified||-|
|26-Feb-2013 01:01||BrianH||Comment : 0003503||Modified||-|
|26-Feb-2013 00:50||abolka||Comment : 0003504||Modified||-|
|26-Feb-2013 00:49||BrianH||Comment : 0003503||Modified||-|
|26-Feb-2013 00:47||abolka||Comment : 0003504||Added||-|
|26-Feb-2013 00:46||BrianH||Comment : 0003503||Added||-|
|25-Feb-2013 23:57||sunanda||Comment : 0003502||Added||-|
|25-Feb-2013 23:48||Ladislav||Comment : 0003501||Modified||-|
|25-Feb-2013 23:42||Ladislav||Comment : 0003501||Added||-|