Re: [boost] Re: [Formal review] Collection Traits library

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-07 08:27:24

Jonathan Wakely writes:
> 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
> their hierarchy.

Not quite. Re-reading the beginning of the thread might help to clarify
things.

> 
> > 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.

As you choose. I find a commonly accepted meaning of the word much more useful.
In any case, that's not what I was arguing about.

> 
> I'm not fervently arguing for "Collection" as a concept, so I'll shut up.

Just to make sure we understood each other, I have nothing against "Collection"
being a name for a concept in general ;). I'm opposed to using it to name the 
particular concept under review.

--
Aleksey Gurtovoy
MetaCommunications Engineering