Per Bothner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 05/25/2013 02:06 PM, Vassil Nikolov wrote: > > > > > > Per Bothner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 05/25/2013 01:50 PM, Vassil Nikolov wrote: > >>> > >>> Per Bothner <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> ... > >>>> a bag of T is just > >>>> a minor optimization of a map (hash-table) from T to integers. > >>> > >>> Except when equality only depends on > >>> parts of the elements. > >> > >> I don't understand this comment. > > > > If a bag's notion of element equality only > > takes into account a part of each element > > and ignores the rest of the element, > > keeping a count instead of the elements > > themselves would lose information. > > I don't the think the bag API supports this. I.e. using > a bag will also lose information, unless the bag API is > clearly specified to support this use case. And I don't > believe it does. In any case, I believe it will be better if it does, or it would be better if it did. My 2e-2. > ... > To support this use-case you could use a map that maps > T to list-of-T. So there is still no strong need for a > separate bag API. I'd rather abstain on the latter point, at least for now. ---Vassil. 2013-05-26. -- Would you like your metaphors shaken or stirred? Vassil Nikolov | Васил Николов | <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
