From: Jonathan Wakely (cow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-06 09:34:25
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 07:58:49AM -0500, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
> > 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.
My apologies - I thought this was a discussion of STL-style concepts and
> 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.
Yes, and since ISO 14882 defines Sequence one way that's how I use it.
I'm not fervently arguing for "Collection" as a concept, so I'll shut up.
-- "If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten." - George Carlin
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk