Re: Reminder, blatant ad

From: David Cressey <dcressey_at_verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 23:58:52 GMT
Message-ID: <0jwFf.5765$mF2.2921@trndny09>

"JOG" <jog_at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote in message news:1139107816.478812.62630_at_g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Two possibilities that I can think of - it might be possible to say
> that merging an unordered set and a totally-ordered set (list) might
> reasonably create a partially ordered set. (hence you have a general
> system that handles all types of ordered sets underneath the hood). Or
> you might just want to make everything a list as in the case of lisp
> (and who knows, there might be something to be said for that). I think
> the former probably has more potential.
>

When we built Muddle (aka MDL) we implemented arrays and lists for almost precisely the reason you and Marshall have outlined here. If you have lists, you need arays for direct access, when things get big. If you have arrays, you need lists when
splicing in a new item is cheaper than shuffling everything to one side.

So we built both.

"arrays" doesn't really address the same issue as "sets", but there's some overlap.
I'm talking physical, here.

At the logical level, there isn't that much difference between a list and a set, is there? Received on Sun Feb 05 2006 - 17:58:52 CST