Re: Sets and Lists, again
From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 09:18:38 +0200
Message-ID: <4472b69c$0$31650$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 09:18:38 +0200
Message-ID: <4472b69c$0$31650$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
JOG wrote:
> In the end a list is 'this, then that, then t'other' - purely ordinal.
> As such here I agree with Gene - creating an index to identify the
> location of each item in that list is a physical accessor. To obtain
> the third element in a list, for example, one processes 'start_head,
> get_next, get_next'. Any cardinal access to 'element[3]' is surely a
> physical, and not logical, shortcut.
Two ways to represent a list as a relation:
(1) add an item-number or
(2) add a successor reference
involve a locator. I wouldn't know why one would
be a shortcut for the other. Is there a way
that does not involve locators?
Received on Tue May 23 2006 - 09:18:38 CEST