On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Raoul Duke <rao...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> and the fast-union would require all sets
>>> to have the same type.
>>
>> No it wouldn't. It needs the two sets it was passed to have the same
>> element type and ordering, and it needs to have access to the
>> comparator for that ordering.
>
> It makes sense to me that we are better off splitting out as many
> types/interfaces as possible.
>
> e.g. Set+{Ascending,Descending,Random >> SetAscending, SetDescending,
> SetRandom.
Then how do you define fast union generically? No, I think the order
really wants to be a parameter of the Set family.
_______________________________________________
bitc-dev mailing list
bitc-dev@coyotos.org
http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
