On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 06:05:10PM +0100, TSa wrote:
: HaloO,
:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: >On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 11:42:05AM +0000, Luke Palmer wrote:
: >: >+ Hash Set hash keys same set $_.keys === $x
: >:
: >: You can either think of a hash as a set of pairs, or you can just
: >: project to a set of its keys. As long as we're consistent about going
: >: with a latter, I think it will be okay.
: >
: >That's the approach I'm taking.
:
: Note that there is no decision to make here. A set of pairs
: is *not* a hash. E.g. { (1,2), (1,3) } is a set of two pairs
: but the additional uniqueness of the keys fails.
True, a Set of Pair is not a Hash, but we're not worried about it
from that end here. That is, we're not very worried about what a
Hash *is*--the decision we need to make is how a Hash *behaves* when
coerced to Set context. That could return a set of either the pairs
or the keys. I think we're forcing it to be just the keys just because
it seems more useful to consider a Hash to behave like a set of values
with a link to some associated data that is not counted for identity.
(And in the case of a KeyBag, the value is precisely what tells us how
"not-unique" the key is.)
Larry
