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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,e382b50ddc696050 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-09 06:04:57 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!wn1feed!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.204!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!rwcrnsc53.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Mark Lundquist" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada 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 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001 14:04:57 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.127.202.212 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: rwcrnsc53 1007906697 204.127.202.212 (Sun, 09 Dec 2001 14:04:57 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001 14:04:57 GMT Organization: AT&T Broadband Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17644 Date: 2001-12-09T14:04:57+00:00 List-Id: "Jeffrey Carter" wrote in message news:3C114702.98662A90@boeing.com... > > If we can't agree on the basic properties of lists we'll never get > anywhere. Perhaps we need an appeal to authority here. 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! You are having an argument about nomenclature, not about the basic properties of anything. You just think you are because you have befuddled each other with bad arguments. Jeffrey -- of course "sequence" (extrinsic ordering) is a fundamental property of any kind of a linked list. I don't think anyone is confusing the data structure in question with a set, bag, heap, or any other kind of intrinsically ordered thing. Your point is irrelevant to the nomenclature question. Ted doesn't deny that a list has direction, he's saying that a doubly-linked list has two directions, and for some reason he feels strongly about any kind of preferential scheme that would seem to establish one end or direction as secondary or relative (like "Normal" vs. "Bass_Ackwards" :-). 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 extremities are "Bow" and "Stern", then the directions had better be "Forward" and "Aft". That's why "Head/Tail" is kinda bad -- with a na�ve choice for the direction names, like "Forward/Reverse", even the originator of the naming scheme probably wouldn't be able to keep them straight :-). But you have to start somewhere, and everybody knows it's arbitrary which 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. Cheers, -- mark