Re: [boost] Re: set class

From: Fernando Cacciola (fcacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-30 14:20:47

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Bergman" <davidb_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 3:22 PM
Subject: RE: [boost] Re: set class

> 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.
>
Just my two cents on naming...

I conclude that after so much discussion about the name, the fact that you
haven't found it yet, could indicate that Rich's set is peculiar: that is,
it has a unique set of properties which no other known  (by the people here)
'set' has.

Thus, as Rich himself is insisting on, you should focus on those unique
properties and decide if they are OK or should be changed. If the resulting
convened set of properties is still unique, I think that Rich has the right
to be creative and give this structure a unique, *original* name.
Giving it a creative name will urge users to take the time to learn about
the specific properties of this 'set' type; any familiar name will convey
some implicit semantics which my be only partially covered, and that
'partiality' could be the source of misuse and false assumptions.

Fernando Cacciola
Sierra s.r.l.
fcacciola_at_[hidden]
www.gosierra.com