Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair / soyabean.com.au> wrote:
> On Sunday, July 27, 2003, 3:28:06 AM, Gavin wrote:
> 
>> It should, shouldn't it?  It's meant to combine the fast lookup of
>> Hash with the convenience of Array, yet the most important method Hash
>> and Array have in common, Set lacks!
>> [...]
> 
> Oh well, judging by the responses, I guess it's not all that sensible
> after all.
> 
> I just don't like typing "include?" for something as simple as a lookup,
> especially when Set (to my mind) is just a special case of Hash --
> with a bit more thrown in.  Also since "include?" is bad grammar.

How about Set#> and Set#< which would call superset?, subset?, include?
and raise respectively when given a set or an object? Elements are then a
special case of subsets.

martin