Piers Cawley wrote: > Maybe we should just say 'sod it' and implement the entire Smalltalk > Collection hierarchy and have done with it? Sets, bags, hashes > (dictionaries for the Smalltalker), whatever, all have their uses...
I'm not sure if you were being facetious, but I do think all the functionality of these should exist: how many times do we have to explain, to newbies, the perl idioms for using hashes as sets? Collections boil down to two basic properties: ordered/unordered and duplicates/unique. We only have c<%> and c<@> available for 4 combinations; and perl uses these to indicate the underlying implementation (sans ties), and the type of key. Seems to me that we will either end up using c<$> (objects) for most collections; or we'll be creative in our use of properties for @ and %. Dave.
