Darren Duncan wrote:
> However, if the above proposal is done, I would still want an easy way to
> get the value-count pairs from a bag if I wanted them.
I don't see any problem there. Mason's suggestion only deals with the
Bag as seen through the the lens of the Iterable role; when viewed as
a hash, the value/count pairs will still be readily available as the
hash's key/value pairs.
IMHO, this is one of the few reasons to maintain a separate hash-like
interface for Bags and Sets. But for the most part, we should be
thinking of them as being array-like rather than hash-like.
Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang