Re: Sets and Lists, again
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 10:32:09 +0300
Message-ID: <e4udks$3in$1_at_emma.aioe.org>
"mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message
news: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?
Yes. (3) Received on Tue May 23 2006 - 09:32:09 CEST