Is there significant differences in the conception
of List::Compare and the existing Set::Scalar
package?
For instance:
use Set::Scalar;
my @a = getListA();
my @b = getListB();
my $comp = Set::Scalar->new(@a)->compare(
Set::Scalar->new(@b)
);
This, of course, creates two throw-away blessed
objects, but I don't know if your proposed
solution wouldn't throw away at least a couple
of hashes after the compare anyway...
Hope this helps,
Mark Dilger
--- Janek Schleicher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Terrence Brannon wrote at Thu, 27 Jun 2002 15:53:55
> +0200:
>
> >> and the equivalents isnt_equal, isnt_equal_set,
> isnt_equal_bag.
> >
> > why not simply do:
> > not List::Compare->is_equal_set
> >
> > the negated methods seem unnecessary.
>
> Of course the are unnecessary.
> Well, but from a linguistic view,
> it seem's reasonable.
>
> If there are two things different, the english
> speaker says,
> that "compared, they aren't equal".
>
> I think it's the same principle like with the
> statements 'if' and 'unless'.
> One of the both is unnecessary, but I won't miss
> anyone.
>
> However, from a linguistic view,
> the methods a suggested should be called better:
>
> are_equal, are_equal_sets, are_equal_bags
> (perhaps shorter as are_eq, are_eq_sets,
> are_eq_bags)
> and the negative methods:
> arent_eq, arent_eq_sets, arent_eq_bags.
> (perhaps are_diff, are_diff_sets and are_diff_bags
> is a better name)
>
>
> Greetings,
> Janek
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
