No,
You got it both wrong ;)
Should've looked at the long story.
SubSEquenceableCollection really is a good name _because_ it denotes 
slices (sliceability). It is really used to factor the slicing
out of SequencebleCollection.
In this light it becomes clear that you will never need a subsubsub...SQ.

Rgards,
Torge

Am 05.12.2002 08:20:14 schrieb Daniel Joyce <daniel.a.joyce at worldnet.att.net>:

>On Wednesday 04 December 2002 09:40 pm, Brian T Rice wrote:
>
>> I don't have suggestions about the implementation, but I do recommend
>> using the name "Sequence" instead of "SubSequenceableCollection"
>> since the latter denotes some kind of slice (as in "SubSequence").
>
>Why not just have a message that returns a row/column as a normal 
>sequencable collection of your choice?
>
>Why the need for a super fancy sub-sub-sub sequencable collection? ( 
>what happens when start considering 3D matrices, or 4d? <:) )
>
>Just ask the Matrix how you want it sliced/diced?
>
>Take this with a grain of salt, but...
>
>Matrix row:3 would return the 3rd row of the matrix, etc, etc
>
>Also, matrices and arrays are two different beasts. Sure, a matrice's 
>data can be stored as a 2d array, but one is a handy storage format, 
>and the other has all sorts of mathematical cruft.
>
>Also, If we've gone to matrix, and throw away the lightweight 2D array, 
>well, what happens when you ask Matrix to multiply itself by a 1D 
>array? ( Array is a degenerate case of Matrix now, should it not be 
>removed too? ).
>
>What's needed is a general array class, that can construct a variety of 
>n-dimensional arrays, and a PIE like system that allows one to graft on 
>the math aspects/traits as needed... ;)
>
>Nevermind the whole point with numbers being used to run loops....
>
>Why do numbers need to know about looping? Is there some other way than 
>
>1 to: 3 do: [ ]
>
>We got numbers acting like loop constructs, and now arrays acting like 
>mathematical objects....  Besides, building a 2D array is already easy, 
>it's just a collection of collections. 
>
>I don't think any of this makes sense from a well factored standpoint. 
>Too many things doing what they shouldn't.
>
>-Daniel
>
>
>
>