On 2011-12-09, at 12:05:41, Alexey Muranov wrote:
>=20
> I agree, i was simply pointing out that set is, in my opinion, a more =
basic data structure than associative array, and both associative arrays =
and relations can be either built on top of it, or simply represented by =
sets.  In particular, it seems wrong to me that Set uses Hash in =
implementation, and not the other way around.

A hash table isn't an associative array (also known as a map). The =
latter can be implemented using the former, as can a set. Perhaps it'd =
have been better to abstract Hash more from its implementation, but it =
wasn't.

I don't see any practical benefit in unifying the two, given the =
assumption that Hash is to remain the default =96 and fast =96 data =
structure to use. Have you run any numbers to see how much of a hit =
you're going to take from deconstructing Hash?


--
Magic is indistinguishable from insufficiently advanced technology.=