[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: Sebastian Egner <sebastian.egner@xxxxxxxxxxx>*Subject*: Re: default ordering of vectors*From*: Per Bothner <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:52:51 -0700*Cc*: srfi-67@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Delivered-to*: srfi-67@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*In-reply-to*: <OFAE4B88EF.A06D7BF6-ONC1257046.004DE3E8-C1257046.00559456@xxxxxxxxxxx>*References*: <OFAE4B88EF.A06D7BF6-ONC1257046.004DE3E8-C1257046.00559456@xxxxxxxxxxx>*User-agent*: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2-6 (X11/20050513)

Sebastian Egner wrote:

Looking at the discussion again, I see only three major arguments: (1) Conceptually vectors and lists are just sequences, and these are conventionally ordered LEX by default.

(2) LENGTH-LEX is more natural (and efficient) for sequences that support a constant-time SIZE operation.

(3) Conceptually strings are "vectors of chars" and strings areconventionallyordered LEX by default, so vectors should be ordered LEX as well in order to reduce confusion. From my point of view, (2) is the most fundamental, in a mathematical sense. By providing different orders for vectors and lists it is also possible to have the two most important liftings of total orders to sequences readily available.

-- --Per Bothner per@xxxxxxxxxxx http://per.bothner.com/

**References**:**default ordering of vectors***From:*Sebastian Egner

- Prev by Date:
**default ordering of vectors** - Next by Date:
**Re: On optional arguments** - Previous by thread:
**default ordering of vectors** - Next by thread:
**Re: default ordering of vectors** - Index(es):