Terrence Brannon wrote (Fri Apr 6 22:46:59 HKT 2007) > HOWEVER. isn't a tree the most general data > structure? You can make lists out of trees and > make arrays out of lists. Therefore the most > fundamental and broadly applicable data structure > is a tree and not an array.
I consider the basic data structure to be the ordered pair. With less than ordered pairs, I don't see what would count as structuring. With ordered pairs, it seems to me that any data structure can be created. >From ordered pairs, lists are a natural extension. >From lists one may move to lists of lists. If those are constrained to be regular in size and of uniform element typing, you have arrays along the lines of J arrays. I'd not judge the "viability" of any data structure in the absence of problem contexts. Yet, not all data structures can be given equal weight in language design. Some sort of generalization must be chosen. I remain impressed with the benefits of regular arrays. One of the very best aspects of J is how the managerial details of its data structures are hidden, so that only abstracted consequences are apparent. A fine example of this streamlining is the reference system J uses. (I.e. the manner of indexing, taking, amending, etc.) My recent reading has included enough APL for me to be struck by how much was gained by the elimination of subscripting. Tracy Harms ____________________________________________________________________________________ Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
