On 2002.07.08, Tom Sawyer <transami / transami.net> wrote:
> i don't program in c/c++.

I see.  From your previous messages, I was lead to believe that
you had programmed in C/C++.  So, if you don't program in the
languages, where does any of your knowledge of these languages
come from?

> anyway, it dosen't matter.

Right.  Lets get onto the interesting stuff:

> the point is simply that strings are an ordered list of characters.
> arrays are order lists of objects. in so far as the two are common, i
> want the same methods for both. no suprises.  that's all.

The difference between strings being an ordered list of characters
and arrays being ordered lists of objects is that you're missing a
whole dimension relevant to strings and arrays: semantic information.

One might say that a String is an Array of Characters, therefore a
String ought to inherit all the properties of an Array.  But then,
adding semantic information to a String, a String is also an Array
of Words at the same time.  It's also an Array of Sentences and
an Array of Paragraphs.  Sometimes.

Is a String really an Array of Objects?  Sure.  Is a String more like
an Array than like a String (whatever that might be)?  Of course
not.

The point here is that it is a matter of _convenience_ to _human
programmers_ to work with Strings as Arrays and therefore a String
ought to provide easy ways to coerce Arrays out of Strings.  However,
to operate under the impression that Strings are nothing more than
Arrays with extra accessories is really diminishing the capacity
of the object hierarchy's ability to model what Strings really are.

-- Dossy

-- 
Dossy Shiobara                       mail: dossy / panoptic.com 
Panoptic Computer Network             web: http://www.panoptic.com/ 
  "He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own
    folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70)