Support of algebraic operations on dictionaries (was: ... sets)
siguctua at gmail.com
Sat Jun 16 11:53:14 UTC 2007
On 16/06/07, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, at 11:25 , sig wrote:
> > On 16/06/07, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
> >> On Jun 16, 2007, at 9:10 , nicolas cellier wrote:
> >> > So creating a HashedCollection above both Set and Dictionary would
> >> > be an
> >> > interesting alternative.
> >> Possibly, yes. The main reason for Dictionary to inherit from Set is
> >> to reuse the hashing.
> >> The current inconsistencies come from Dictionary being a subclass of
> >> Set, but not behaving as a proper Set. One manifestation of that is
> >> #union: which relies on #asSet actually answering a collection with
> >> Set semantics.
> > A Set overrides a #union:, which is not using #asSet for this
> > operation anymore.
> I'm sorry, but apparently you don't get it. Compare #union: in
> Collection and Set. Set *has* to override this because Collection
> uses #asSet which is a no-op in Set. So instead of #asSet it uses
> #copy. The intent of #asSet in #union: is to get a variable-sized
> Collection with unique elements. Dictionary's behavior in response to
> #asSet violates that assumption.
> >> Not having Dictionary be a Set subclass seems a lot cleaner to me
> >> than trying to patch it up with more overrides.
> > Honestly i can't see what must be overriden in Dictionary to make it
> > consistent with Set.
> > It's all about Association, which makes Dictionary to not comform with
> > sets semantics.
> No, it's because Dictionary is a Collection. Indices or keys in a
> Collection are secondary. Look at the protocols in Collection - it
> does neither define nor use #at:.
Yes, and that's why its abstract. To define generic operations on
different collection types, which introducing own indexing/ordering
> > Maybe it's because i considering a Dictionary as set of keys with
> > associated values instead of collection of arbitrary elements, where
> > each one of them having unique key.
> This is not unreasonable, but it is *not* what Dictionaries in
> Smalltalk are. You want, in your own words, a "set of keys with
> associated values". So use it instead of a Dictionary! Have a Set of
> LookupKeys then. Or even better, rather than in these oversimplified
> examples, reify your concept - for language translation have a
> TranslationEntry class that implements #= and #hash based on the
> original word and use a Set to store them.
> Let me put it this way: The main property of Sets is that its
> elements are unique. The invariant would be
> aSet allSatisfy: [:element | (aSet occurrencesOf: element) = 1]
> This indeed holds for each Set, but not for Dictionaries - you can
> have the same value multiple times.
Another example of breaking protocol rules. Do you see any practical
and good use in overriding #do: in Dictionary to iterate through list
of values instead of associations by default? I don't. I'm serious.
I'm agree that Dictionary must behave as Collection at first place and
only then as Set. But it isn't:
TestClass >> isAdded: value to: collection
collection add: value.
^ collection includes: value.
self isAdded: (a -> b) to: Dictionary new. --- returns false
Does it behaves correctly in this example?
> So please, to get this discussion to a fruitful end, let's fix
> Dictionaries, but not redefine their semantics to suit your specific
> needs. Maybe using Nicholas' suggestion (which I find cleaner but has
> potentially more severe consequences) or by patching up Dictionary,
> in this case by overriding #asSet.
I understand your position. If you consider Dictionary as collection,
lets fix it conform to Collection first. :)
> - Bert -
More information about the Squeak-dev