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.=