From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,955fad43713fdf44
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Theodore E. Dennison" <dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com>
Subject: Re: NFA to DFA
Date: 1996/05/15
Message-ID: <3199D093.41C67EA6@escmail.orl.mmc.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 154932336
references: <4n1its$rtt@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Lockheed Martin Information Systems
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4m)
Date: 1996-05-15T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Jon S Anthony wrote:
> 
> In article <31987C20.167EB0E7@escmail.orl.mmc.com> "Theodore E. Dennison" <dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com> writes:
> 
> > ARRAYS of boolean in a bitwise fashion. So why bother with some fancy
> > generic ADT package (that might have bugs)?
> 
> Simple.  If the universe over which you can construct sets is "big",
> but the sets themselves are typically not "so big" relative to the
> universe (the cardinality of the compliment of any set >> cardinality
> of the set - at least typically...) then the array of boolean impl.
> offers poor quality of service (maybe not even plausible...).  Also,

What? You don't LIKE bit arrays that take up 1/8th of your virtual
memory space?  :-)

O.K. But most Modula-2 compilers couldn't handle sets that large either.
What you are describing is more of a list than a set. An ADT would be
put to good use in making a list look like a set.

-- 
T.E.D.          
                |  Work - mailto:dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com  |
                |  Home - mailto:dennison@iag.net              |
                |  URL  - http://www.iag.net/~dennison         |