no that is not right.

first of all, a linked list is not simply an array. a linked list holds
both an object and a link in reference to the next object in the list
(at the very least). an array is no more then an ordered collection of
objects. so a linked list is not an array. a linked list is different
kind of data structure from an array (an ordered list).

but even so, your statement would still be invalid because even if a
linked list were a type of array, it would not mean a string were a
linked list. this is what i was trying to point out with cat - parrot
anology. while, a cat is an animal, and a parrot is an animal, a cat is
NOT a parrot.

~transami


On Sun, 2002-07-07 at 13:35, Hal E. Fulton wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Tom Sawyer" <transami / transami.net>
> To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk / ruby-lang.org>
> Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 2:30 PM
> Subject: Re: is there a better string.each?
> 
> 
> > > Yes, quite right. A linked list is also an
> > > ordered collection of items. Yet we wouldn't
> > > say that a string "is a" linked list.
> > > 
> > > Hal Fulton
> > 
> > not to be mean, but this is just the worst logic:
> > 
> > "Yes, quite right. A *cat* is also an *animal*.
> >  Yet we wouldn't say that a *parrot* "is a" *cat*."
> > 
> > no one has said anything to the effect that a string is a linked list.
> 
> But you were saying that a string is an array 
> because it's an ordered collection of elements.
> By that logic, a string is also a linked list,
> no?
> 
> A string is not intrinsically an array any more 
> than it is intrinsically a linked list.
> 
> Hal Fulton
> 
> 
> 
-- 
~transami

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
 temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
	-- Benjamin Franklin