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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,229ea0001655d6a2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder3.cambrium.nl!feeder1.cambrium.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!138.195.8.3.MISMATCH!news.ecp.fr!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Generic Package Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 18:16:23 -0500 Organization: Jacob's private Usenet server Message-ID: References: <1177539306.952515.222940@s33g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <9eejm6rqip.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <19qllkvm6ut42$.1iqo74vjgmsrv$.dlg@40tude.net> <1177801611.10171.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1woad6hn9idy2$.6otnwphc1o0h$.dlg@40tude.net> <1177929029.6111.34.camel@localhost> <1177944533.13970.17.camel@localhost> <2aq08qbvw0ym$.1rquampzo7o53.dlg@40tude.net> <1ieq3io2d6nnq$.13818v3y35gnr.dlg@40tude.net> <1178010142.6695.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1178026941.16837.88.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1ozvzzh59ebq8$.yeh9do8s3hig$.dlg@40tude.net> <40irbbzm2t.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: jacob-sparre.dk 1178234061 15423 69.95.181.76 (3 May 2007 23:14:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 23:14:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15486 Date: 2007-05-03T18:16:23-05:00 List-Id: "Markus E Leypold" 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.