[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
Set & Table hierarchy
- To: <ravi>
- Subject: Set & Table hierarchy
- From: Mark S. Miller <mark>
- Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 12:23:56 PST
- Cc: <xtech>
- In-reply-to: <Ravi>,36 PST <8911091833.AA04857@xanadu>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 89 10:33:36 PST
From: ravi (Ravi Pandya)
...
ScruSet<Heaper> :: count() stepper()
isEmpty() hasMember(x) isSubsetOf(s)
mutable() immutable()
What do the "mutable" & "immutable" messages to a ScruSet mean? I can
think of several possibilities.
1) make mutable & immutable versions of this ScruSet, starting from a
current snapshot. In which case, it should be called "asMuSet" and
"asImmuSet".
2) Is this ScruSet a MuSet? Is it an ImmuSet? In which case the
messages should go away because their functionality is adequately
subsumed by "isKindOf".
3) make MuTable & ImmuTable versions of this ScruSet. I can't figure
out what this would mean, but if this is intended, let's call these
"asMuTable" and "asImmuTable".
In short, I think our pun has destroyed the utility of "immutable" as
a general descriptive word that can apply to non-Tables. The general
terms become "Mu", "Immu", and "Scru"; used as prefixes. Aren't you
glad you came up with these puns {-;?