+1 on this On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Jon Lang <datawea...@gmail.com> wrote: > As for the bit about sets vs. lists: personally, I'd prefer that there > not be quite as much difference between them as there currently is. > That is, I'd rather sets be usable wherever lists are called for, with > the caveat that there's no guarantee about the order in which you'll > get the set's members; only that you'll get each member exactly once. > The current approach is of much more limited value in programming.
I think of a list conceptually as a subclass of a set- a list is a set, with indexing and ordering added. Implementation-wise I presume they are quite different, since a set falls nicely into the keys of a hash in therms of what you'd typically want to do with it.
