LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project

LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Options: Use Classic View

Use Proportional Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:17:57 +0100
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (24 lines)
Philipp Stephani writes:

 > >>> - dedicated stack and queue datatypes that hide their implementation
 > >> 
 > >> Can you go into more detail about what is deficient in l3seq for this?
 > > 
 > > I think we are getting at "concepts" here: something like \cs_set_eq:NN \stack_new:N \seq_new:N, ...
 > 
 > Yes. This separation would perhaps be a bit clearer to the user. I read the
 > discussion in source3 on removing \seq_put_left in favor of \seq_push, but
 > with a stack datatype (which would be rather trivial) we would have the
 > same situation as in C++: A deque as a container (a L3 seq is in fact
 > similar to a deque because you can add elements at both ends, but not in
 > the middle, as opposed to vectors and lists), and stack and queue as
 > container adaptors. However, this is a purely design decision (Python, for
 > example, has no dedicated stack datatype).

at some point in time there has been a separate stack module but we decided
not to keep that separation. As mentioned it is largely a design/philosophical
question and I think we should leave it as it is.

frank
 > 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2