Tom Christiansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >I don't want a set representation. I want set operations. And somehow
> >for this having to add a use statment and who knows what overhead for
> >what seems to be a simple operation is a pain.
>
> The overhead is not that it should be a module, but rather,
> the sillily/evilly inefficient thing that *you* are doing.
> Or trying to do.
>
> We have modules to do this. We have hashes to do this.
> We have the technology. It is ignored. Ignorance of
> technology is no excuse for adding strange basic types
> and operations on them into the very heart of a programming
> language.
I wonder if an RFC proposing some way of allowing folks to implement
named infix operators wouldn't be better than the current one
proposing adding set theoretic functions? Then the set theretic stuff
is just a SMOP on top of the more general 'making named infix
operators' RFC.
Of course, there's every chance that said RFC would get shot down in
flames, but if it *were* accepted and proved possible to implement
then we get a whole lot more functionality than just set munging ops.
However, I'm damned if I'm writing such an RFC; I'm not even sure that
the functionality would be a win.
--
Piers
