Am 20.01.2013 15:37, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt: > > > On Sun, 20 Jan 2013, Florian Klämpfl wrote: > >> Am 20.01.2013 15:16, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt: >>> >>> >>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013, Florian Klämpfl wrote: >>> >>>> Am 20.01.2013 14:47, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? Why not ? I see no difference with a list or collection ? >>>>>> >>>>>> A tree is something implementation specific while the fpc-stl is only >>>>>> about opaque data structures. E.g. the fpc-stl supports TSet: but the >>>>>> whole implementation is hidden. The user does not/need not to know >>>>>> how >>>>>> the set works internally. It could be a linked list, a tree, >>>>>> whatever. >>>>> >>>>> For me, a tree is a data structure, just like a set, list, collection, >>>>> queue, whatever. >>>> >>>> A tree is an implementation detail. For example a set could be >>>> implemented using a tree. >>> >>> I understand you the first time :-) >>> >>> For me, a tree is at the same level as a set. Whatever models your data >>> best. >> >> A set is defined by some properties and possible operations like that it >> can contain each element only once, that it is possible to build >> intersections, unions etc. > > Aha... That's a mathematical definition.
It is a definition, yes. > > So: A graph is also mathematically defined. And a tree is just a > specialized graph. So a number is also at the same level? It is also mathematically defined :) So even ansi pascal has generics, it has numbers: integers and reals :) > > Stalemate :-) _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
