RE: [xacml] straw poll on "<type>-map" or "map"

[Daniel Engovatov <dengovatov@crosslogix.com>]

> As for the "type-bag", "type-one-and-only", "type-bag-size" functions, I
>would be very happy if they were polymorphic as well. The type is pretty
>meaningless to their functionality. However, the function "type-is-in"
>calls an implicit function "type-equal" to handle the membership
>determination. So, it can be said that it is needed.

Why would you be happy?  Would it make for a  simpler, faster and more
efficient implementation for a variety of languages and architectures?

What is the reason for introducing polymorphic functions beyond it being a
"cool" feature?  Use case?  Sample implementation that we can see, how it
useful?

Daniel;