Can a variable like 'int' be considered a primitive/fundamental data structure?

A rough definition of a data structure is that it allows you to store data and apply a set of operations on that data while preserving consistency of data before and after the operation. However some people insist that a primitive variable like 'int' can also be considered as a data structure. I get that part where it allows you to store data but I guess the operation part is missing. Primitive variables don't have operations attached to them. So I feel that unless you have a set of operations defined and attached to it you cannot call it a data structure. 'int' doesn't have any operation attached to it, it can b开发者_StackOverflowe operated upon with a set of generic operators.

Please advise if I got something wrong here.

To say that something is structured implies that there is a form or formatting that defines HOW the data is structured. Note this has nothing to do with how the data is actually stored. You could for example create a data structure that exists entirely within a single Integer, yet represents a number of different values.

A data structure is an arbitrary construct used to describe how to store data in a system. It may be as simple as a single primitive, or as complex as a class. So the answer is largely subjective. It's "yes" if you decide to use a primitive as such, that a simple primitive may be considered a primitive data structure, because it describes HOW you wish to store an element of data. The answer is also "no", because it describes an element of a structure and not necessarily the whole structure in itself.

As for how this relates to operations, strictly speaking a data structure has nothing to do with behaviour, it is simply a storage mechanism. Preserving consistency of data is really a behavioural thing. Yes, your compiler probably spits out errors if you try to shoe-horn a 32-bit value into a Byte, but that's symptomatic of the behaviour of the system (Ie: compilation) acting on the data structure of your application, of which your primitives are an element.

I don't think your definition of data structure is correct.

It seems to me that a struct (with no methods) is a valid data structure, but it has no real 'operations'. And that's not important. It's holding data.

To that end, and int holds data, an Object holds data. They are data structures (technically).

That said, I don't ever find myself saying "What datastructure shall I use? I know! an int!".

I would say you need to re-evaluate the meaning of "data structure".

Your definition of a data structure isn't quite correct. A data structure doesn't necessarily have any attached behaviors or operations. An ADT or Abstract Data Type is what you are describing as a data structure. An ADT includes the data and the behaviors or operations that work on that data. An int by itself is not an ADT, but I suppose you could call it a data structure. If you encapsulate an int and its operations then you have an ADT which is what I think you are trying to describe as a data structure. Classes provide a mechanism for implementation of ADTs in modern languages.

wikipedia has a good description of abstract data types.

I would argue that "int" is a data structure - it has a defined representation and meaning. That is, depending on your system, it has a specific length, a specific set of operators available to it, and a specified representation (be it twos-compliment). It is designed to hold "integer numbers".

Practically, the distinction isn't particularly relevant.

Primitives do have operations attached to them; however, they may not be in the format of methods as you would expect in an object-oriented paradigm.

Assignment =, addition +, subtraction -, comparison ==, etc are all operations. Especially if you consider that you can explicitly define, override, or overload these operations for arbitrary classes (i.e.: data structures) in some languages (e.g. C++), then the primitive int, char, or what have you, are not very different.

Primitive variables don't have operations attached to them. So I feel that unless you have a set of operations defined and attached to it you cannot call it a data structure.

'int' doesn't have any operation attached to it, it can be operated upon with a set of generic operators.

Generic? Then how come 2+2 works, but "ninja" + List<float> doesn't? If the operator was generic, it'd work on anything. It doesn't. It only works on a few predefined types, such as integers.

Ints certainly have a set of operations defined on them. Arithmetic operations such as addition, subtraction, multiplication or division, for example. Most languages also have some kind of ToString()-like functionality defined on integers. But you can't do just anything with an int. For example, you can't pass an int to a function expecting a string. ints have a very specific set of operations defined on them. Those operations just aren't member methods. They come in the form of operators and non-member functions or member methods of other classes. But they are still operations that work on integers.

I don't think, (ref: Wikipedia entry) that Data Structure includes the definition of permissible operations (on operators). Of course, we could cite the C++ class as a counter-example in which we can define overloaded operators. At the same time, we define a structure as just a composite/user defined datatype and do not declare any permissible operations on them. We allow the compiler to figure that out.

'int' doesn't have any operation attached to it, it can be operated upon with a set of generic operators.

Operations are intrinsically linked with the things that they operate on; there's no such thing as generic operations.

This is true in the mathematical sense (< works for in set of integers, but has no meaning for complex numbers), and also in the computer scientific sense (evaluating a + b requires that a and b are or can be converted to compatible types on which the + operation is defined).

Of course, it depends what you mean by "data structure." Others have focused on whether your definition is correct and raise good questions. But what if we say, "Let's ignore the term for now, and focus on what you described?" In other words, what if look at

• A piece of data that has a designated interpretation of its value
• A set of operations on that data

Then certainly, int qualifies. (If there were no operations on int, we'd all be stuck!)

For a more mathematical approach to programming that begins with these questions, and takes them to what some have called "an algebra of computation," see Elements of Programming by Alex Stepanov and Paul McJones.