Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by 98.163.7.8 - "→Array structure?: " |
Undo vandalism to old comments |
||
Line 11:
== 'of a specific data type' ==
"In computer programming, a group of homogeneous elements of a specific data type is known as an array, one of the simplest data structures" is false for Ruby; "Ruby's arrays can accomodate diverse object types". -[http://www.rubyist.net/~slagell/ruby/arrays.html Ruby User's Guide]
Is the definition of arrays inaccurate, or are Ruby arrays not strictly arrays?
--[[User:Wootery|Wootery]] 20:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
:"Array" is one of those slippery terms. The usual definition is from C terminology, where, of course, arrays ''are'' always homogenous. As far as I know, 'array' originaly was more or less synonymous with 'list' in the computer science literature to mean a collection of things ordered by index. I'm not sure where computer science comes down on this issue today. --[[User:Apantomimehorse|Apantomimehorse]] 04:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
:Ruby's arrays can be seen as arrays of variant types. The homogenity of type is not quite as essential as the uniformity of element size, which is necessary for ordinary address computation. It appears someone has added this in addition to the existing wording, which says "usually" and is now redundant. Argh. [[User:Deco|Deco]] 09:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Line 253 ⟶ 254:
These articles about arrays have become a collection of ORIGINAL RESEARCH which is not the purpose of WP.
An array is called just an 'array' and hardly ever called an 'array structure'. The hair-splitting activity w/r/t to 'array data structure' and 'array data type' is similarly obscure. Someone please provide definitive reference to the legitimacy of the terms and their definition. The new set of articles is confusing and almost incomprehensible even for knowledgeable readers. Side-by-side comparison of the original with the new clearly reveals that the original array article was superior article for encyclopedic use. [[User:Kbrose|Kbrose]] ([[User talk:Kbrose|talk]]) 06:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
::: MOVED MATERIAL FROM PERSONAL TALK PAGE: Hi, you removed the [[:Template:distinguish:Array data type]] from [[array data structure]] and added "original research" and "expert attention needed" in addition to the "unreferenced" and "cleanup needed" tags that I had already put there. Now, I won't call myself an expert, but I have been programming data strcutures for 40 years, and I am quite familiar with language design, type theory, etc.., from COBOL to Modula-3. So, Yes, those articles still need a lot of checking and editing; but I dare say that they are a bit better than the original [[Array]] article. The main problem of the latter (which is still present in [[data type]] and other related articles) was a pervasive confusion between "data strcutures", "data types", and "abstract data types", which are three very different things. What I did was basically separate the first two. Besides, much of the material in the two new articles came from the old Array article. So, if you feel uncomfortable about some parts, please be more specific,and we may discuss them. All the best, --[[User:Jorge Stolfi|Jorge Stolfi]] ([[User talk:Jorge Stolfi|talk]]) 07:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
| |||