Re: Ping: dawn, some mvl questions

mAsterdam wrote:
> Kenneth Downs wrote:
> > ...
> > I am in the school of thought that says that if you need a list, make a
> > table, that's what the RM is for.
>
> (Not about MV but sets/lists)
>
> I am in school of thought that says that if you see a list, it might
> be set that is meant. People often don't need to distinguish
> between them for day to day purposes,
<snip>

Not only that, but it is impossible to enumerate a set without the representation being a list. We write in lists, we speak in lists, and we are sometimes unaware of the meaning we give to a set when we list it. Does a grocery list refer to a set or would you lose something if you treated it that way?

Retaining the order of something represented as a list might just provide ongoing information never verbalized. If a user lists something in an order, but we have defined it as a set because there has been no overt statement of the meaning of the order, might be losing information? Cheers! --dawn Received on Sun May 21 2006 - 14:48:18 CEST