Daniel Ruoso wrote: > But the semantics of sets are still somewhat blurry... there are some > possibilities: > > 1) Sets are in the same level as junctions, but have no collapsing and > allow you to get its values. The problem is if it autothreads on > method calls or not... It also makes $a > $b confuse... > > 2) Set ~~ Any, and all the inteligence is made implementing multis, > it has the disadvantage that new operators will need to have > explicit implementations in order to get Set DWIMmery... > > I have been unsure about that, but lately I'm mostly thinking option 2 > is the sanest, which means we only get as much DWIMmery as explicitly > implemented (which may or may not be a good idea).
My understanding is that Set operates on the same level as Hash and List - indeed, a Set could be thought of as a Hash that only cares about the keys but not the values, and has a few additional methods (i.e., the set operations). That is, a junction is an item with an indeterminate value; but a Set is a collection of values in the same way that a hash is. And the proper sigil for a Set is %, not $. -- Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang
