On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Torge.Husfeldt wrote:

> 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

I mentioned "SubSequence" because Slate implements those and renames
SequenceableCollection to Sequence. What I was suggesting was that
SequenceableCollection includes (sub-)sliceability or linearization
capability, and that SubSequence be the slices themselves.

-- 
Brian T. Rice
LOGOS Research and Development
mailto:water at tunes.org
http://tunes.org/~water/