> 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:


so (a=>0).Bag will continue to yield ().Bag.


Reply via email to