> On 01 Mar 2015, at 02:01, Darren Duncan <dar...@darrenduncan.net> wrote: > > On 2015-02-28 3:27 PM, Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote: >> An interesting thought for the non-mutable cases of Set, Bag and Mix. >> >> For the mutable cases (SetHash, BagHash, MixHash), setting the element to 0, >> is effectively deleting it. >> >> For the non-mutable case, I guess we could argue that *if* you specified it, >> it should exist as such. >> >> Will ponder about this… > > If you're going to support that alternative, it should still be easy for one > to get the behavior where the non-mutable cases don't contain elements with a > count of zero. Zeros can easily arise when doing operations like set > difference or intersection etc, and we would want consistency between values > that arise that way versus ones explicitly selected with a literal. -- Darren > Duncan >
The pondering has been cleared up by TimToady: http://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6/2015-03-01#i_10199408 so (a=>0).Bag will continue to yield ().Bag. Liz
