>> So, when I use the term "array", you automatically forced into a
>> row-major physical implementation, instead of a column-major
>> implementation or a linked list or a hash table or something else?
I doubt if it really a concern. The row-major order/column-major order
shouldn't be even relevant to user unless the language forces the user to
describe to how the array is traversed in memory and how each element is
accessed in memory. For single dimensional arrays, common operations like
CreateArray(n), GetElement(a,i), SetElement(a, i, <new value>) doesn't
require specifying additional implementation level details. Obviously, if
performance is a concern then you'd think about the layout and storage in
memory, esp. if the array is of higher order, but that wouldn't be at the
logical level.
>> All I hear with *data structure* is an access method that can have
pretty
>> much any data type at the node or cell level. I cannot see why an
access
>> method could be a data type. The box is not the birthday present :)
If that is what you mean, then there is little contention. But I still
think
that is too simplistic to be the well-understood description of data
structures in general.
--
Anith
|
