🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6187@pdn.paradyne.com> alan@oz.paradyne.com (Alan Lovejoy) writes:
... <other topics not germane to this followup>
>
>The other favorite misinterpretation of the definition of the language is
>the nutty idea that providing set types  which can contain more elements 
>than the number of bits in a WORD is "nonstandard."  It is NOT!!!!  PIM2
>says only that implementations are not REQUIRED to support set types which
>can contain more elements than the number of bits in a WORD.  But they are NOT
>FORBIDDEN from doing so.  Any implementation that does not support SET OF CHAR
>is useless for most purposes.  SETs are  almost never used for anything except
>SET OF CHAR.
>
 ^^^^^^^^^^^                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This last sentence is the one with which I wish to differ.  I used to think
this way when the only systems I programmed were character-oriented; however,
programming systems like the Mac has changed that perception.  I almost never
use SETs for anything other than WORD and LONGWORD operations anymore, the
exception being an occasional foray into something like a keyboard mapping.
Just because most pedagogical exercises involving SET-oriented operations
revolve around SET OF CHAR doesn't mean that the practical application of
SETs is going to do so.


-- 
Dennis Cohen
Claris Corp.
------------
Disclaimer:  Any opinions expressed above are _MINE_!