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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOTS_OF_MONEY, TO_NO_BRKTS_FROM_MSSP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,e382b50ddc696050 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-10 07:38:01 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!newsranger.com!www.newsranger.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: Ted Dennison References: <3C0DB9D0.7184868A@acm.org> <3C0EB851.77E7172A@boeing.com> <3C0FAF78.6F006DF7@boeing.com> <3C110606.A37E9D10@boeing.com> <8%8Q7.53294$xS6.88020@www.newsranger.com> <3C114702.98662A90@boeing.com> Subject: Re: Basic Properties of Lists Message-ID: X-Abuse-Info: When contacting newsranger.com regarding abuse please X-Abuse-Info: forward the entire news article including headers or X-Abuse-Info: else we will not be able to process your request X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsranger.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 10:37:42 EST Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 15:37:42 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17675 Date: 2001-12-10T15:37:42+00:00 List-Id: In article , Mark Lundquist says... >Look, you guys both know what a doubly-linked list is; you don't need some >double-dome to weigh in with a ruling on it! :-) >But Ted, what's the big whoopie deal about this, anyway? Who cares if the >names have a "directional bias", as long as the semantics are clear? The >important thing is the relationship between the names you choose for the >extremities and the names you choose for "direction", right? So if the I'm just explaining *why* I feel the way I do about the naming, that's all. You are absolutely right that its not that big a deal. >ends you call "First" and "Last". I don't buy the argument that a >preferential naming scheme entails a loss of flexibility or that it obscures >the property of bidirectionality. I'd agree with the first, but not the second. You might not buy the argument that it obscures the issue fatally (I don't think I would either), but I don't see how you can claim that it doesn't obscure it at all. How about we use "Head" and "Tail" for terminology? In the final analysis I don't think they are any more biased than "Front" and "Back". Plus those terms are traditionally associated with lists, so they might be more acceptable to Jeff. As an added bonus, I don't think anyone is liable to complain that it ought to be "Tailward" and "Headward" instead. :-) --- 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.