Talk:Collections: Difference between revisions
(Clarified) |
(Please, clarify "set" and "value") |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Seconded. It's unclear what "objects" should be in a language that doesn't have any objects, but where all "collections" are polymorphic anyway, and hence can store any type (not only primitive types). And why is it necessary to have this restriction in the first place? To rule out simple C-style arrays? It's also unclear what interface a "collection" should expose (other that than one can add elements). In many languages, collections offer a generic way to unify '''access''' to some concrete container datatype, with operations like ''map'', ''fold'' (sometimes called ''reduce''), or ''filter'' (sometimes called ''select''). Is that what is meant here? If so, is only the generic interface of interest, or also concrete implementations (lists, arrays, various trees)? --[[User:DirkT|Dirk Thierbach]] 18 November 2007 |
Seconded. It's unclear what "objects" should be in a language that doesn't have any objects, but where all "collections" are polymorphic anyway, and hence can store any type (not only primitive types). And why is it necessary to have this restriction in the first place? To rule out simple C-style arrays? It's also unclear what interface a "collection" should expose (other that than one can add elements). In many languages, collections offer a generic way to unify '''access''' to some concrete container datatype, with operations like ''map'', ''fold'' (sometimes called ''reduce''), or ''filter'' (sometimes called ''select''). Is that what is meant here? If so, is only the generic interface of interest, or also concrete implementations (lists, arrays, various trees)? --[[User:DirkT|Dirk Thierbach]] 18 November 2007 |
||
: Clarified. I removed the type restriction, as well. --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 12:57, 21 November 2007 (MST) |
: Clarified. I removed the type restriction, as well. --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 12:57, 21 November 2007 (MST) |
||
Please clarify in which sense the words "set" and "value" are used. Is set ordered? Are values comparable? Mathematically, array is not a set, it is an ordered set. Do arrays qualify? Further, the word "value" presume "value semantics." Is it an intention of the task? Shall the entities put into the collection be copied upon the operation? --[[User:Dmitry-kazakov|Dmitry-kazakov]] 02:38, 3 June 2008 (MDT) |
|||
Revision as of 08:38, 3 June 2008
"Collections", as a task, is far from being clearly defined. Can someone add a brief description or a list of task requirements? --Shock 20:24, 24 January 2007 (EST)
Seconded. It's unclear what "objects" should be in a language that doesn't have any objects, but where all "collections" are polymorphic anyway, and hence can store any type (not only primitive types). And why is it necessary to have this restriction in the first place? To rule out simple C-style arrays? It's also unclear what interface a "collection" should expose (other that than one can add elements). In many languages, collections offer a generic way to unify access to some concrete container datatype, with operations like map, fold (sometimes called reduce), or filter (sometimes called select). Is that what is meant here? If so, is only the generic interface of interest, or also concrete implementations (lists, arrays, various trees)? --Dirk Thierbach 18 November 2007
- Clarified. I removed the type restriction, as well. --Short Circuit 12:57, 21 November 2007 (MST)
Please clarify in which sense the words "set" and "value" are used. Is set ordered? Are values comparable? Mathematically, array is not a set, it is an ordered set. Do arrays qualify? Further, the word "value" presume "value semantics." Is it an intention of the task? Shall the entities put into the collection be copied upon the operation? --Dmitry-kazakov 02:38, 3 June 2008 (MDT)