On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 03:57:12PM +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Orton, Yves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-03 13:17]:
> > In my eyes data structures are pretty much inseperable from the
> > algorithms that operate on them.
>
> I was asking because I wondered if you had particular objections
> about the aesthetics of the name.
>
> You're right that if we already have an Algorithm:: namespace, it
> doesn't make much sense to have Datastructure:: as well.
>
> I guess it's a matter of viewpoint. To me, the data structure
> is what really matters. The algorithm is merely a function of it
> in my mind. So I'd be inclined to emphasize the former over the
> latter.
>
If I were looking for something that operated on skip lists I would
think of the data structure and not the algorithm that operates upon it.
In the c++ stl there are different algorithms that operate on different
data structures, but using a (generally) common api. If I want to look for
something remotely similar to this I would expect to find it classified by the
datastructure (e.g. "vector", "list") represented and not the algorithms that
support it. To classify by algorithm would seem to be like classifying cars
based upon the materials used in construction. Sure, you _could_ want to do
that, but it seems a little strange to have it be the primary method of
identification.
Austin
