From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-06 07:58:49
Jonathan Wakely writes:
> On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 05:15:56AM -0500, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
> > Thorsten Ottosen writes:
> > > "Aleksey Gurtovoy" <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> wrote in message news:073d01c43295$1d7354b0$6401a8c0_at_metacomm.com...
> > > | Pavol Droba writes:
> > >
> > > | > You are not quite right. Sequence concept is precisely defined in C++ standard.
> > > |
> > > | Yes, and that's unfortunate, because it is essentially a dead concept -- "nobody"
> > > | writes generic code that relies on it -- that has occupied a good name. In fact,
> > > | "Collection" is exactly the word that would perfectly fit to describe what the
> > > | standard choose to refer to as "Sequence". I don't think going the other way
> > > | around would be a good call.
> > >
> > > what would you use for sequence then?
> > Well, I don't have an ultimate answer, but here's a couple of candidates:
> > Range
> > Iterator Range
> > View
> > Series
> > Succession
> These terms are not synonymous.
I didn't imply they were.
> Some imply an ordering, others do not.
Depending on your definition of ordering none or all of them do.
> The standard's "Sequence" concept has a definite ordering,
Doesn't matter what standard's "Sequence" concept has; for one, it's a dead
concept. A "sequence" as a word in a programmer's dictionary doesn't imply
a definite ordering in the sense in which the term is used in the standard;
"random sequence" is a perfect, well, sequence.
> "Collection" not "Container" imply any ordering.
They all guarantee that the 'end' reachable from 'begin', that is, that by
repeatedly incrementing 'begin' you'll go through a range of successive
elements until you reach the 'end'. I don't see anything inherent in the
word "sequence", or, for that matter, "series" or "succession" that implies
more than just that. Again, "random series" or "random succession [of
> My dictionary defines collection as "an accumulated assortment of things
> of a particular type" - which sounds ok for this concept. There's no
> implication of containing or owning the things, so the fact that VB
> (or CS in general) have used the term to describe ownership is a fault
> in VB, not the word!
Programming is all about communication; it doesn't matter what the original
meaning of the word is/was; what matters is what your teammates think of
when they hear it. I'm claiming that most people think of collection classes,
i.e. containers with storage.
> > > | In CS terminology, collections are inherently
> > > | associated with storage;
> > >
> > > can give any examples of this CS terminology?
> > http://tinyurl.com/yr3bb
> I don't think there's a good case for either side of the argument.
> Several of the sites you give as examples of "Collection" implying storage
> contradict your point:
Does it? Seems like a supporting case to me:
virtual class Collection[T] inherits Any
** insert a T into the collection
insert(t:T) : Self[T] is deferred
If that doesn't imply storage, I don't know what does.
> There Sequence is an ordered Collection, which fits both the STL terms
> and the proposal for "Collection Traits".
> IMHO the example of range_view(0,100) could happily be called a
> ForwardCollection - there's no containment but there's a definite
My problem is that Collection _does_ imply storage for me, and the connotation
is continuously reinforced by a numerous examples from all around.
-- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk