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
> > 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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk