Why Strings as Classes?

[Dee Girl]

Nick Sabalausky Wrote:

> "lurker" <lurker at lurk.com> wrote in message 
> news:g95e2c$1rbf$1 at digitalmars.com...
> >
> > Come to your senses. Open any algorithms book. Finding the nth element in 
> > a list is linear search. It does not matter whether you are looking for a 
> > value or an index. Search is search is search. Claiming a linear search 
> > it's not a linear search is just empty retoric and semantic masturbation.
> >
> 
> Not that I normally go to such lengths for online debates, but I just 
> happened to have my algorithms book a few feet away, and, well, I really was 
> curious what it would say...
> 
> Apperently, not much. The Second Edition of "Introduction to Algorithms" 
> from MIT Press doesn't appear to back either of us on this point. On page 
> 198, it lists "Operations on dynamic sets". "Search" is defined as 
> retreiving a pointer to an element, given the element's "key" (ie, not index 
> or value, and the book defines "key" on the prior page and the defenition 
> doesn't match what we would consider an index or value).  But none of the 
> other operations are anything that would correspond to an "Indexing" 
> operation.  The section on linked lists (pages 204-209) doesn't provide any 
> more clarification. It still treats search as retrieving a pointer to an 
> element given an associated key and doesn't mention anything about getting 
> the "Nth" element (perhaps not surprising, since the *implementation* of 
> such an operation would obviously be very similar to search).

The properties are important Nick-san. Not the name! If it looks like a duck and quakes like a duck then it is linear search ^_^.