From: Michael S. Kaplan (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Oct 07 2007 - 08:26:58 CDT
Perhaps in the interests of not boring everyone to tears, could we leave the
definitional/wordsmithing side of all of this to the Editorial Committee and
focus on actual technical issues?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philippe Verdy" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "'Mike'" <email@example.com>; "'Andy Heninger'"
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; "'Mark Davis'" <email@example.com>;
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 5:49 AM
Subject: RE: Proposal for matching negated sets (was Re: New Public Review
Issue: Proposed Update UTS #18)
>> De : Dominikus Scherkl [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>> Envoyé : dimanche 7 octobre 2007 14:04
>> À : email@example.com>> Cc : 'Mike'; 'Andy Heninger'; 'Mark Davis';
>> Objet : Re: Proposal for matching negated sets (was Re: New Public Review
>> Issue: Proposed Update UTS #18)
>> Philippe Verdy schrieb:
>> > Mark, the question is not "if sets don't have an implied ordering". By
>> > definition a set is a unordered thing. There does not exist any ordered
>> Of course there exists ordered sets!
>> If you put an ordering on a set, it still remains a set.
> No! It becomes a vector or list and behaves very differently : you need
> special code to handle insertions (that require reordering, or inefficient
> representation as a list through costly pointer indirections, or costly
> copy-on-move operations).
> And you do not need maintaining the order offsets at runtime for allthe
> internal steps of computing the output. It'sbest to sort the output only
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 07 2007 - 08:28:32 CDT