On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Michael G Schwern wrote: > Don't fixate on it, write Test module with better set handling.
Ah, now I see what people don't understand about the point I was trying to make. Let me try again: that function does not take sets as parameters. It takes arrays, which may or may not also be sets. The problem lies not in the fact that it should use "bag" in the name or whatever, but that you're broken from the beginning in creating data objects that can be put into invalid states (if you consider an array with duplicate values still to be a set) or you can change one type into another with no warning (if you consider an array with duplicate values to be no longer a set but a bag). The whole problem could never have arisen if sets were objects here, rather than, pretending that an array really is a set. That's the point I'm trying to make. And also note that then you wouldn't need any special test, since your standard "is equal" test would invoke $obj1->is_equal($obj2). (Assuming that they both accept those messages--otherwise it would just compare the references to see if they both refer to the same object). cjs -- Curt Sampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC
