Re: ASCL a doomed idea?

[Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com>]

In article <MZoR7.30524$wL4.108797@rwcrnsc51>, Mark Lundquist says...
>And I can't say much for your choice of name for the itera... I mean, the
>uh... the dookus.  "Position" is what you call it, right?  Well, the term
>"position" connotes like an index or something -- you know, "first",

It was called "Position" in the Strawman back when I wasn't presenting a safe
iterator, with an interal pointer back to its list. In that mode it really did
act like an array index, except that you didn't have random access. Now that the
Strawman is presenting a safe iterator object, the name "Iterator" seemed more
appropriate. That's why it is that way in 1.3.

Anyway, JC01 presents an unsafe style iterator. His comments say it could go
either way, but if its safe, there's no sense in supplying the list with it like
all JC01's routines do, so I think his presentation only makes sense for an
unsafe iterator. For an unsafe iterator, I think "Position" is reasonable, as it
at least underlines that you can't expect the compiler to do all your checking
for you like you would with a true iterator.

Which one we use is something that still needs to be decided. Perhaps there
hasn't been much discussion about this because everyone is happy with the way
the latest Strawman does it (safe)?

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. 
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.