Austin Hastings writes:
>
> --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I agree. But I think that we can get away here with just hash
> > properties , just like hash behaviour in <regexps> is controlled by
> > properties .
> >
> > e.g.
> > union:
> >
> > (%a,%b) ^is no_strict_keys ;
> > (%a %b) ^is default_value ( 0 ) ;
> > %a ^[+] %b
> >
> > intersection :
> >
> > (%a,%b) ^is strict_keys ;
> > %a ^[+] %b
> >
> >
> > this maybe longer but clear : one line - one concept .
>
> Arcadi,
>
> How would this work for hashes with differing properties?
>
> E.g.,
>
> %a = ("apple" => 1, "abacus" => 2);
> %b = ("banana" => 3, "abacus" => 2);
>
> %a ^is strict_keys;
> %b ^is no_strict_keys;
>
> %c = %a ^[+] %b;
>
> What would happen?
in the result hash there will be only keys of %a, because
%b *can admit unknown keys*, but %a - cannot
>
> %a rules?: %c == ("abacus" => 4)
> %b rules?: %c == ("apple" => 1, "abacus" => 4, "banana" => 3)
> strict_keys filters result?: %c == ("apple" => 1, "abacus" => 4)
>
> =Austin
>
arcadi
