RE: [boost] Re: set class

From: David Bergman (davidb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-30 13:22:21

Rich,

That is fine, there is no need to be overly attached to the mathematical
meanings of words. So, maybe "pascal_set" would reveal its nature (for
us pre-Pascallers, anyhow...)

But, there is a quite big difference between "constrained_set", which
implies that there is an explicit constrained world the sets are taken
from (such as a application-universal set), which is the case with your
set library (I hope you do not mind me using the name Spamjunk Set
Library, I think it is a bit fun; which reveals the hopelessly dull life
I have ;-). "finite_set" does not add much, within the realms of
computation, to the picture, though... 
Your sets are not more finite than others.

Regards,

David 

-----Original Message-----
From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of spamjunk_at_[hidden]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 1:58 PM
To: boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: RE: [boost] Re: set class

> Anyhow, suggestions such as "selection_of", "domain" (with the Finite 
> Domain semantics, rather than the algebraic semantics), 
> "constrained_set" are all at least logical. Alternatives such as 
> "finite_set" are not, since they do not reveal the discriminating 
> nature of this structure (these sets are no more finite than many 
> other sets, as pointed out: 2^32 is not extremely finite in terms of 
> modern computers, unfortunately; I wish it was).
> 
> /David
> 

Saying that "constrained_set" is acceptable and "finite_set" is not, is
I think,
pull hairs (or how ever that expression goes).  I would find either
acceptable.

In naming this set, I wouldn't worry so much about any involved
mathematical
concepts or the set's implementation.  Any name from derived from math
that fits
(subjective, of course), but morphs a little (i.e., "powerset"), may
still be
acceptable.  After all, functor and vector doesn't map exactly to their
mathematical origins, but who cares?  You math profs. may, but we code
slingers
sure don't.  As for names based in the fact that the elements are coded
as bits,
I don't like.  I prefer names that express what it is design for, not
how it
accomplishes it.

Rich Herrick

pop-server.stny.rr.com

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