On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 04:33:54AM -0500, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote: [snip]
I wasn't suggesting to re-define the standard's Sequence concept to mean what we want (although that's not entirely impossible). Rather, I was saying that "Collection" is a bad substitute for the occupied term.
I found collection easy to understand. I don't understand what is wrong with it.
There is nothing wrong with the word per se. It just has a commonly accepted meaning that is in conflict with the definition we are giving to the identically named concept. In particular, like I said earlier, "Collection" commonly implies storage, while the concept in question specifically aims to represent sequences that don't have any. Compare, for instance, http://tinyurl.com/32fmb and http://tinyurl.com/3h23s.
It very well fits into the standard concept hierarchy
Collection < Container < Sequence < Associative container
Looks like a total mess to me. If anything, it should be
Sequence < Collection < Container < Associative Container < View
I don't agree, that sequence is a good candidate for this concept as you're suggestion. Sequence directlu implies that elements are sequentialy organized. There are operations that are natural only to sequences like push_front/back() front/back() pop_front()/back. There is nothing like front() for map, yet it can be enumarated, Maybe the best name for the concept should be "Enumerable". That designates, the primar goal of this conceps, i.e. to be able to enumerate the elementes of an arbitrary collection/container or what ever you name it. Regards, Pavol