[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
All arrays can be adjustable?
- To: Sandra J Loosemore <email@example.com>, David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>, David L. Andre <DLA@DIAMOND.S4CC.Symbolics.COM>, Scott Cyphers <Cyphers@YUKON.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>, Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: All arrays can be adjustable?
- From: David C. Plummer <DCP@QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Wed, 20 May 87 09:37 EDT
- In-reply-to: <8705200103.AA04735@orion.utah.edu>, <870519213421.9.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>, <870519222134.7.DLA@LIMPKIN.S4CC.Symbolics.COM>, <870519221837.3.CYPHERS@RAVEN.S4CC.Symbolics.COM>, <870520024109.4.KMP@TSUKUBA.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Maybe if we could figure out how to express the various types of arrays
using set language we wouldn't accidentally invert phrases. For
example, I think everybody agrees that simple is a subset of
(intersect not-adjustable not-fill-pointer not-displaced)
That's the >only< thing that phrase says. It can't be inverted,
conversed, contra-positived, or anything to say that simple arrays are
not adjustable. The contra-positive (the only thing provably true) is
that the UNION of adjustable, fill-pointered or displaced arrays is a
subset of non-simple arrays.