Re: Generic Package

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Markus E Leypold"
<development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> wrote in
message news:ijwszq2tiq.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de...
...
> > I actually agree with DK, using his definitions. The problem is that no
such
> > set could ever be constructed (even on a piece of paper, the elements
have
> > an order). So the fact is completely irrelevant: there is no such thing
as
> > an unordered set.
>
> I repeat: There is a bit of confusion on 3 different things:
>
>  (a) the way we write down sets (notation)
>  (b) orders (binary relations with certain properties)
>  (c) orderable sets, i.e. sets for which an order can be defined.

Probably. But I was *very* clear, I was using DK's definitions. Whether they
match some mathematical definition I don't know. You're arguing from some
abstract mathematical definition and assuming everyone agrees with it. That
doesn't wash. (Your definition is consistent, and fine, its just different
than the one I was using. Thus it is hard to not talk past each other.)

...
...
> > Of course you can if you assume primitives that effectively give you an
> > order.
>
> No. Have you read the functional spec I wrote? I just use set
> operations and a suitable cursor abstraction. Of course the choice of
> the next element is not deterministic in the specification but that is
> as it should be: It indicates that the implementation has a certain
> degree of freedom here.

I didn't recall it, but I think it actually proves my point. You've just
moved the magic into a "cursor" abstraction and a "Next" abstraction - which
shows far more implementation than the "foreach" iterator abstraction I was
thinking of. (There's no good reason for a set to have a cursor abstraction,
after all.) And "Next" gives you an order, even if that order is undefined.

...
> > And I would hope that I was done reading this bulls***, but I'm sure I'm
> > not...
>
> Sorry. I'll stop. No sense in annoying people. But I'm a bit pained
> that you characterize my "contribution" as BS, whereas you tolerate
> DKs prevarications pretty well. Never mind.

Sorry, my comment was uncalled for. And it wasn't really directed at you but
more at everyone who's kept this thread going for what seems like months.
(And I'm guilty of that, too. I probably ought to get a newsreader with
thread kill...)

                         Randy.