Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pur-phy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!clyde!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CSvax:Pucc-H:Physics:hal
From: CSvax:Pucc-H:Physics:hal@pur-ee.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Modula-2 - BITSET
Message-ID: <1035@pur-phy.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Sep-83 12:43:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: pur-phy.1035
Posted: Fri Sep 30 12:43:09 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 3-Oct-83 06:03:37 EDT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Dept.
Lines: 17

The type BITSET has no business being a STANDARD type, it belongs in
SYSTEM.  Its definition is blatantly machine dependent.

A related problem with all languages that have a SET type:  Why should
there be a limit on the size of a SET?  Certainly a set which fits in
one word is more efficient to access than one which requires many words;
but so what?  Can you imagine a language which limited the size of an
ARRAY or a RECORD to "a constant defined by the implementation"?
If there has to be a "small" limit (instead of MaxInt or MaxCard being
the limit), then as the very MINIMUM it should be possible to say
	SET OF CHAR;


				Hal Chambers
				Physics Dept.
				Purdue Univ.
				(...!pur-ee!pur-phy!hal)