>> and the fast-union would require all sets
>> to have the same type.
>
> No it wouldn't. It needs the two sets it was passed to have the same
> element type and ordering, and it needs to have access to the
> comparator for that ordering.
It makes sense to me that we are better off splitting out as many
types/interfaces as possible.
e.g. Set+{Ascending,Descending,Random >> SetAscending, SetDescending, SetRandom.
_______________________________________________
bitc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
