On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 22:34, Joshua Ballanco <jballanc / gmail.com> wrote:

> Actually, the bulk of Set's functionality is already built on top of Hash.
> Personally, since the ability to create Hashes from comma-delimited
> key,value lists has been removed in 1.9, I think reintroducing it to create
> Set literals is not the worst idea in the world.
>
> Additionally, implementing Set functionality directly on top of Hash would
> remove the unfortunate method call overhead that currently exists in the
> Set library (note that the implementation of Set#include? is just a call
> through to Hash#include?):
>

This really does seem to just be an argument via implementation details. I
don't think that's the best approach. The point of implementation details
is that they're just that.