[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
Table class hierarchy
- To: <heh>
- Subject: Table class hierarchy
- From: Mark S. Miller <mark>
- Date: Tue, 14 Nov 89 20:58:03 PST
- Cc: <ravi>, <xtech>
- In-reply-to: <Hugh>,22 PST <8911100021.AA07049@xanadu>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 89 16:21:22 PST
From: heh (Hugh Hoover)
The suggestions you made in your note (Nov 9, 10:33:40 1989) suggests
the following detailed hierarchy (including implementation classes)
/ \ \
MuTable ---- ImmuTable TableView
/ \ /|\
HashTable IntegerTable ... ...
Is there a user-visible class called TableView? Or is "table view"
simply a verbal description of ScruTables which are constructed to be
views of some other Table? I think this is related to the issue of
whether to declare UnaryFn obsolete.
As discussed, if Vector & WordVector are MuTables, then they should be
Array and WordArray. I don't think a formal type distinction has yet
been given to justify Array & WordArray as user-visible types. Here
An Array is a MuTable whose domain is a contiguous sequence of
integers starting at zero and counting up. A WordArray is an Array
whose range elements are each a PackOBits, all of the same word size.
Should we revive Vector & WordVector, their definition is similar,
except they are ImmuTables.