From: Christoph <chr_mail@...>
Date: 2004-04-25T08:09:04+09:00
Subject: Re: enumerable#to_set bug?

Robert Klemme wrote:

> 
> irb(main):009:0> a.to_a.eql?( b.to_a )
> => true
> 
> So maybe Set#eql? should be changed.
> 
>     robert

Check out the thread after the set classed was checked
was included as a standard library [ruby-core:423] -
in particular [ruby-core:423]. I tend to think that is
a toss up up between the current efficient Set#eql?
implementation (actually I wondering why Set#eql? and
Set#hash are overridden at all) and the mathematically
correct

class Set
    alias :eql? :==
end

implementation (in tandem with appropriated Set#hash).
I have more definite opinion on current Set#<=> semantic,
which was adopted from an earlier Set class in
http://sourceforge.net/projects/rubycollections. The latter
strikes me as barely useful maybe even counterproductive.
(Incidentally in Jason's in Set implementation we have
Set#eql? == Set#==).


/Christoph