Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


#Actuallwm

Posted 14 September 2012 - 01:45 AM

I always define an ADT to other students like this:
An abstract data type specifies a component's interface via signatures (e.g. "new: --> Stack, push: Stack x T --> Stack, size: Stack --> Integer") and it's visible behavior via axioms (e.g. "size(new()) = 0, size(push(A, x)) = size(A) + 1") but makes no statements at all about it's implementation.

#1lwm

Posted 14 September 2012 - 01:43 AM

I always define an ADT to other students like this:
An abstract data type specifies a component's interface via signatures (e.g. "push: Stack x T --> Stack") and it's visible behavior via axioms (e.g. "size(new()) = 0, size(push(A, x)) = size(A) + 1") but makes no statements at all about it's implementation.

PARTNERS