"Christoph Rippel" <crippel / primenet.com> wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gotoken / hanare00.math.sci.hokudai.ac.jp
[...]
>I see your point ... . I guess my idea was to be less greedy
>and to reorganize the current Array and Hash classes in a class
>hierarchy which effectively takes away (and sometimes adding and/or
>redefining) most of their current functionality. The core languages
>does not provide among others things a predefined Stack class,
>(Multi)Set (or their ordered variants)- instead this functionality
>was ``crammed into'' the Hash and Array container classes taking
>away clarity of intent, functionality, possible optimizations and
>as Kevin points out creating class interfaces with a pretty steep
>learning curve.
>
>In my opinion it would be a good thing if the standard Ruby
>distribution would ship with a ``nice library'' of well integrated
>basic container classes
[...]

I have mentioned before, perhaps I should mention again.

The right container modules would (when combined with
mix-ins) provide a complete equivalent to Perl's tie.
As things stand someone who wanted to write a version
of Hash or Array which was tied to disk through a dbm
library like Berkeley DB would need to reimplement a
lot of methods.

As an optimization Array and Hash might reimplement
some of these things directly, but still the overall
structure would be good to have around.

Cheers,
Ben
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com