From rlpowell@csclub.uwaterloo.ca Fri Dec 01 11:47:01 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: rlpowell@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 1 Dec 2000 19:47:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 65039 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2000 19:46:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Dec 2000 19:46:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca) (129.97.134.11) by mta2 with SMTP; 1 Dec 2000 19:46:06 -0000 Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA07587 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 14:50:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200012011950.OAA07587@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Set operations? Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 14:50:00 -0500 X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell So, was there ever any consensus on set operations? In particular, have we agreed on a way to do either set XOR or set difference, because if not, we don't have a complete set of set operations, and that would suck. -Robin -- http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest. Information wants to be free. Too bad most of it is crap. --RLP