From: Clark C. E. <cc...@cl...> - 2002-09-11 16:15:36
|
On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 08:26:33AM -0700, Ned Konz wrote: | I think you can look at Smalltalk as being more or less the same as | Ruby. That is: | - sequenceable collections (Array, OrderedCollection, ...) | - maps (Dictionary, IdentityDictionary) | - scalars of various kinds | | However, there's an often-used concept in Smalltalk that I'm not sure | how to best represent; that's the Set. I suppose this is really a map | with no values in the key/value pairs. That would work. A list wouldn't have the uniqueness constraint and would imply that order mattered. It wouldn't be ideal, but it would work. ;) set: { 'one': ~ , 'two': ~ } aset: 'one' : ~ 'two' : ~ that's not so bad. Clark |