Re: ::scr Touchy Feely?

["Alaric B. Snell" <alaric@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thursday 24 October 2002 18:33, Piers Cawley wrote:

> > If people stepped back from the differences and saw that it's all
> > just sets then these things would logically converge more,
> > eventually sharing their interfaces so you wouldn't need a different
> > mental model for each of these things.
>
> Yes and no. Yes, be aware of them being 'just sets' but one should
> also be aware of what a particular representation brings to the table,
> and when it's appropriate to use each one.

Yes, of course. The angle I'm aiming at here is seperating the interface 
('Set') from the implementation ('SQL', 'memory', 'etched on the moon with a 
laser')

> Hell, I can show you proof
> that the individual counting numbers are just sets (I don't mean the
> set of such numbers I mean the numbers themselves) built from nothing
> more than the Zermelo Frankel axioms, but that doesn't have much in
> the way of every day utility; it's more convenient to think of numbers
> as being, well, numbers.

Well, obviously...

ABS

-- 
A city is like a large, complex, rabbit
 - ARP