On Sun, 20 Jan 2013, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
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 :)
Exactly :-)
Like I said, I didn't mean to argue.
For me there is no difference, but then I have no affinity with Generics.
Just to say that I am not suitable to maintain fcl-stl.
But someone should definitely take care of it.
Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
