2009/7/21 Julien Fontanet <[email protected]>: > Didier "Ptitjes" <ptit...@...> writes: >> >> Jiří Zárevúcky wrote: >> > 2009/7/20 Didier "Ptitjes" <ptitjes <at> free.fr>: >> >> - Are there some things missing ? >> >> >> > >> > Could you fit in making Map interface a Collection? It is technically >> > a collection of key-value pairs, and I see no reason why the interface >> > shouldn't reflect it. :) >> >> Yeah. I agree on that, hence my question in the first mail about >> exposing an interface for map entries (that key/value pairs). > > How is that possible, the methods' signatures do not match: > - Collection.add (G item) vs. Map.set (K key, V value) > - Collection.contains (G item) vs. Map.contains (K key) > - Collection.remove (K item) vs. Map.remove (K key) > > Collection implements Iterable which provides this method: Iterator<G> > iterator () whereas it should be Iterator<Pair<K, V>> iterator () for Map. >
The trick is that Map<K, V> would implement interface Collection<Pair<K, V>>. Unless there is some serious bug in Vala, it would work perfectly. The .NET framework does it this way and it always worked perfectly for me. _______________________________________________ Vala-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
