Moritz (>), commitbot channeling ash (>): >> +=item new >> + >> + our List multi method new(*...@args) >> + >> +Constructs a C<List> containing the arguments passed to the C<new> method. > > Since the argument list is already a List (or very nearly), I don't see > much sense in this constructor.
I respectfully beg to differ. I picture the yet-unimplemented collection classes -- Set, Bag, KeySet, KeyBag -- having constructors very similar to the above. A constructor of the same type for List would firstly be in line with those others. Secondly, even though the constructor might be a no-op in this case, sometimes it would be good if it were there. (Let's say you need to call *some* constructor, either Set.new or List.new, depending on some external circumstance.) Thirdly, how *does* one construct a List nowadays? One that isn't an Array, that is? // Carl
