--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I agree. But I think that we can get away here with just hash
> properties , just like hash behaviour in <regexps> is controlled by
> properties .
>
> e.g.
> union:
>
> (%a,%b) ^is no_strict_keys ;
> (%a %b) ^is default_value ( 0 ) ;
> %a ^[+] %b
>
> intersection :
>
> (%a,%b) ^is strict_keys ;
> %a ^[+] %b
>
>
> this maybe longer but clear : one line - one concept .
Arcadi,
How would this work for hashes with differing properties?
E.g.,
%a = ("apple" => 1, "abacus" => 2);
%b = ("banana" => 3, "abacus" => 2);
%a ^is strict_keys;
%b ^is no_strict_keys;
%c = %a ^[+] %b;
What would happen?
%a rules?: %c == ("abacus" => 4)
%b rules?: %c == ("apple" => 1, "abacus" => 4, "banana" => 3)
strict_keys filters result?: %c == ("apple" => 1, "abacus" => 4)
=Austin
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
