> The point is that a hash of booleans (not a list of hashes) is a more direct
> way to implement a set. A set is unordered, and does not have duplicates.
> This is also true of hash keys. Furthermore, the nature of a hash makes it
> faster and easier to check for the existance of a key, which is the
> fundamental operation of a set (test for membership).
Yes, ok for the choice of the implementation.
But I'm speaking about a new language feature, and it is more natural to
manipulate sets like arrays, than like hash tables.
I don't care about keys when I'm working with sets, and I don't want to
have to deal with them.
Then, if when implementing these new functions in perl6 you choose to
use an invisible hash table, ok, I don't care, but when writing my perl
script I don't want to deal with hash tables for arrays/sets. I want a
natural syntax, which is not necesseraly the point of view of a
compilator developper.
I'm a perl language user, not a perl language creator, so I want a
simple and easy to use language with nice, basic, simple and usefull
functionnalities.
Hash tables are not natural for sets, arrays are, so the array notation
is good for me :)
