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