Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
> Stéphane Payrard wrote:
> >
> >I think that arrays and associative tables are very
> >different entities for two reasons:
> > -type of keys. array keys are integers
> > -cost of insertion and deletion operations: O(n) and
> > lower for associative table ( O(1) if you don't care
> > for key ordering, O(log(n)) if you care for ordering).
> >
> >This is enough to warrant different syntaxes for arrays and hash.
>
> I'm sure I'll get shot for saying this, but no it doesn't.
> PHP arrays are simply associative arrays with a integer as
> the key value.
What was the reason again which Larry rejected unifying the syntax for array
and hash indexing? As Piers said, we know whether $a is an array or hash
reference when we do:
print $a->{foo};
Someone correct me when I go astray...
Currently in Perl6 you can assign an anonymous array or hash to a scalar as
follows:
$a = [1,2,3];
$b = {a => 1, b => 2};
or
$a = array(1,2,3);
$b = hash(a => 1, b => 2);
If arrays and hashes both settled on []:
$a = [1,2,3];
$b = [a => 1, b => 2];
or
$a = array(1,2,3);
$b = hash(a => 1, b => 2);
It'd mess up the explicit list and hash composer syntax [] and {}. After all
if unified, what's:
$b = [a => 1, b => 2];
An anonymous array of ordered key/value pairs or an anonymous hash?
If this could be resolved in a way which would allow us to translate our
expectations of Perl5 arrays and hashes into Perl6... Wouldn't it give us a
standard syntax for working with collections? So we could punt on Bags,
Sets, Dictionaries, OrderedCollections, etc. and all the variations on
arrays and hashes that people are suggesting. I.e., Deliver a version of
standard Perl arrays and hashes... and make provisions for, but leave the
rest out of the core.
$bag = bag(1,2,1);
print "ok" if 2 == scalar $bag->[1];
@a = (1,2,3);
%h = (a => 1);
%oh is ordered = (a => 1);
©c is bag = (1,2,1); # (C) symbol or some other sigil
