Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!iuvax!pur-ee!pur-phy!hal
From: hal@pur-phy (Hal Chambers)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2
Subject: Re: Sets.
Message-ID: <921@pur-phy>
Date: Tue, 27-Oct-87 07:11:09 EST
Article-I.D.: pur-phy.921
Posted: Tue Oct 27 07:11:09 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Oct-87 06:52:46 EST
References: <INFO-M2%87102620254979@UCF1VM>
Reply-To: hal@newton.physics.purdue.edu.UUCP (Hal Chambers)
Organization: Purdue Univ. Physics Dept., W. Lafayette, IN
Lines: 16

In article <INFO-M2%87102620254979@UCF1VM> Info-Modula2 Distribution List <INFO-M2%UCF1VM.bitnet@jade.berkeley.edu> writes:
>Hmmm, perhaps the BitSet should be defined to be a word size, and uses
>exclusively for bit twiddeling and implementation specific things.  Then,
>I think we would rather need a more abstract set construct.
...
>                                                    Tom Ruby

This is what I have been saying ever since the day I first encountered
Modula-2.  Since BITSET is explicitly machine dependent it should be
part of the pseudo-module SYSTEM and NOT the default type for sets.

There seems to be almost universal agreement on the desirability of an
abstract data type SET.  The majority of these also seem to agree that
there should be no arbitrary restriction on the size other than MAXCARD.

Hal Chambers