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.
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. jon -- "If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten." - George Carlin