From: Sean Russell <ser@...>
Date: 2002-07-08T13:21:32+09:00
Subject: Re: is there a better string.each?

Jim Weirich wrote:

>     Sean> I don't know of a better definition of "Array" than "an
>     Sean> ordered set of somethings".
> 
> Technically, arrays aren't sets.  An element may appear in an array
> more than once.

Well, you're right of course.  This also means that Strings also aren't, in 
any sense of the word, sets.

> Really?  I tend to deal with arrays element by element.  With strings,
> I usually deal with chunks (i.e. slices) or the entire thing at once.
> I usually don't equate a string with an array of characters.  They are
> different animals in my mind.

Hm.  I find myself often dealing with Strings character by character, but 
then again, I do things like write XML parsers.  I often take slices of 
arrays, too.

> I think that's part of the problem.  Everyone is coming into this with
> their own preconceptions of strings and arrays, and they aren't
> matching.

Yes.  I maintain that, lexically, Strings are a series of Characters.  I'm 
not sure how you can get around this; it is true both outside of the world 
of computers and within it.

--- SER