Either way it seems logical to implement it using Sets, or at least extract the core uniquification logic and share it with Set.
So what do/should these methods do if passed a function of indeterminate arity? On 9/8/08, Moritz Lenz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Damian Conway wrote: >> Moritz Lenz wrote: >> >>> There are some tests for List.uniq in the test suite, and pugs >>> implements it, but it's not in S29. >>> Damian seems to have though we should have it. >>> So should we have it? >> >> I still think we should. If only because I've seen it re-(mis)-implemented >> so >> many times. >> >> I'd also suggest that it have the same interface as .sort. Namely that you >> can >> pass a block to specify either a unary key-extractor or a binary >> comparator >> function. > > I like the idea with an unary function, but I have my doubts with the > two arg comparison function, because it implies O(n²) runtime. But then > again if the user needs that, he'd have to implement it in O(n²) anyway... > > Moritz > > -- > Moritz Lenz > http://moritz.faui2k3.org/ | http://perl-6.de/ > -- Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
