Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!turpin
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Subject: Re:  general data structures are impossible
Summary: What is the point of such obfuscation?
Message-ID: <17914@cs.utexas.edu>
Date: 15 Feb 91 17:51:24 GMT
References: <1991Feb12.013413.24312@cs.ubc.ca> <4765@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> <1991Feb13.235655.6202@cs.ubc.ca> <17853@cs.utexas.edu> <1948@n-kulcs.cs.kuleuven.ac.be> <17899@cs.utexas.edu> <1991Feb15.101435.16112@ecrc.de>
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 20

-----
In article <1991Feb15.101435.16112@ecrc.de> thom@ecrc.de (Thom Fruehwirth) writes:
> I don't see why infinite data structures are 'impenetrable mazes' 
> and 'tangled webs' (as pop@cs.umass.edu put it). ...

It takes greater mathematical sophistication to understand
infinite data structures.  I can explain a circular queue to
the average sophomore taking a Pascal class in about three
minutes.  To explain its equivalence as an infinite data
structures, I have to either talk about the view of the finite
structure as its pointers are infinitely chased, or I have to
talk about taking quotients, ie, mapping the infinite structure
onto the finite structure.  What is the point?  What is the
advantage of considering something that is essentially finite
as an infinite expansion?  Oh, yeah.  So you can program it
in Prolog.

I would still like to see a more complex structure, such as a
cone treated in this fashion.  Any takers?

Russell