Sorry: I meant capable *in theory*. It's not in the spec right now for Sets or Bags. On Oct 25, 2010, at 08:41 PM, Mason Kramer wrote:
> That sounds like a subclass of Bag to me. > > But I don't think that thinking about who is subclassing whom is is how to > think about this in Perl 6. All of these types are capable of doing the > Iterable role, and that is what methods that could operate on a List, Array, > Bag, or Set, should be calling for. > > On Oct 25, 2010, at 08:08 PM, yary wrote: > >> +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. >
