Hmm -- interesting example. Mind, I don't think I'd use Tags per se for that: I suspect that Table should be a Model (class, essentially), and it should have a Set of Links to People. You could do it with Tags, but it would probably be more work.
(Tangent: the *intent* of Tags is mainly free-form categorization as you go. While it can be used for more structured purposes, there are lots of other types that are more optimized for those. That said, it'll be interesting to see how people use this stuff in practice, and whether Tags turn into more of a catch-all; if so, I'll probably have to do some re-analysis and re-optimization.)
But in the more general case, this is a nice argument for having the ability to limit the size of a Set, regardless of the type contained *in* that Set; Set[Tag] would just be a special case of that. I'll chew on that...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2012-11-21 06:36 pm (UTC)(Tangent: the *intent* of Tags is mainly free-form categorization as you go. While it can be used for more structured purposes, there are lots of other types that are more optimized for those. That said, it'll be interesting to see how people use this stuff in practice, and whether Tags turn into more of a catch-all; if so, I'll probably have to do some re-analysis and re-optimization.)
But in the more general case, this is a nice argument for having the ability to limit the size of a Set, regardless of the type contained *in* that Set; Set[Tag] would just be a special case of that. I'll chew on that...