On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 04:30:09PM +0200, TSa wrote: : HaloO, : : Larry Wall wrote: : >[..] but since sets are : >immutable values, : : Does that imply they travel in $vars and are a subtype : of Value?
I believe so. : Is Undef of Set the Set::Empty? I don't think so. The empty set should probably be considered a defined value. : Is Set::Empty false? Presumably that would be useful. : >we need only provide an alternate comparison to : >the constructor, and the set itself needn't remember it. On the : >other hand, hashes behaving like mutable sets need to remember their : >comparison operator if it is not the default. : : The slot accessor paradigma again... : Isn't the comparator a free method subtype? Why interfering : at construction time? I haven't the foggiest idea what you are asking, but here are some random answers. We don't want to force everyone to specify it every time, because defaults are friendly. Whose construction time? The hash's? Because that's when you'd want to override the default. Or are you just carping that you don't believe in OO-ness? The whole point of OO is that objects have state. If one of those answers doesn't suit, please feel free to make up another. :-) Larry
