Re: [boost] powerset

From: Victor A. Wagner, Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-29 02:24:45

At Wednesday 2002/08/28 12:26, you wrote:
> > >If all the elements of the set are known at compile time, why
> > >do you need to store the bits at all? Your class can encode
> > >the information in its type, thus, your class can consume
> > >zero bytes.
> >
> > right up until you need to add (or subtract) something that isn't knows
> > until runtime.
>
>....which doesn't always happen.  There are certainly things I could use it
>for at compile-time, rather than my existing practice of generating a
>header file containing an array of magic numbers with an external program.
>
>Back to naming: this new proposed set is no more discrete than the STL's
>set, so "discrete_set" is a misnomer.  I think that the best name I've
>heard so far here for it (other than "set", which is taken :-) is
>"powerset".  Was there something wrong with that suggestion?
>
>Also (albeit without having put much thought into it) it seems to me that
>there ought to be a lot of overlap with bitset/dyn_bitset/etc.  Can all of
>these be rolled into one somehow?

I doubt it...there is precedent for < meaning "lexical compare" (I'd like 
to meet the person that thought THAT was useful) and there are those old 
Pascalites (yeah, I'm both old AND a Pascalite) who think that < should be 
proper subset.  That makes is impossible to roll them all together.

>Dave
>
>_______________________________________________
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Victor A. Wagner Jr.      http://rudbek.com
PGP RSA fingerprint = 4D20 EBF6 0101 B069 3817 8DBF C846 E47A
PGP D-H fingerprint = 98BC 65E3 1A19 43EC 3908 65B9 F755 E6F4 63BB 9D93
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
               "There oughta be a law"