4 ms·
A set doesn't necessarily imply an ordering (unless this article is about some specific programming language, but it seemed fairly generic to me). e.g. Java and
by joosters 6y ago
A set doesn't necessarily imply an ordering (unless this article is about some specific programming language, but it seemed fairly generic to me). e.g. Java and C++ have many Set implementations, some sorted (e.g. a TreeSet) and some not (e.g. HashSet)
- matsemann 6y agoThat's the point. There's no ordering of the items. So the representation can never have an error like [yesterday, tomorrow, today]. It's just a set of (yesterday, tomorrow, today).
- secondcoming 6y agoSo finding out a contract type from a timestamp is linear?
- joosters 6y agoDoesn't that just push all the responsibility onto every piece of code that uses the datatype? 'Remember to sort the contents of this set every time before using it' sounds like it is asking for trouble.
- kevinmgranger 6y agoThe fact that it's a set can be hidden, and any queries that depend upon an ordering can be presented as a sorted view or whatnot.
- rocqua 6y agoThe set, and an ordering over the elements is sufficient. It perfectly defines and represents the intervals mathematically. What implementation of a set you use is a practical detail. When implementing this in practice, you probably want to use a set implementation that gives fast ordering results. But that is a performance consideration. Not a data-representation consideration.