On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 02:20:59AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote: > I forgot an important concretity. Hashes should compare based on the > generic "equal" operator, which knows how to compare apples and apples, > and oranges and oranges, and occasionally a red orange to an apple.
Um. Hashes don't really compare, though, do they? Maybe you just mean a notional equals operator, which isn't really used; but it seems to me that what hashes acutally implement is more of a 'canonicalize' operator. Actually, it would be useful sometimes to be able to give a hash an explicit canonicalizer: my %msdos_files is canonicalized_by lc; my %fractions is canonicalized_by gcd; Alex
