From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,TO_NO_BRKTS_FROM_MSSP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,93ab7fc5388e249 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-05 08:42:51 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!newsranger.com!www.newsranger.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: Ted Dennison References: <3C0E1FA1.45A38A75@brighton.ac.uk> Subject: Re: List container strawman 1.3 Message-ID: <%7sP7.49836$xS6.82296@www.newsranger.com> X-Abuse-Info: When contacting newsranger.com regarding abuse please X-Abuse-Info: forward the entire news article including headers or X-Abuse-Info: else we will not be able to process your request X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsranger.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 11:42:35 EST Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 16:42:35 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17453 Date: 2001-12-05T16:42:35+00:00 List-Id: In article <3C0E1FA1.45A38A75@brighton.ac.uk>, John English says... > >Ted Dennison wrote: >> The other issue is that this version won't actually compile as-is under Gnat. >> (!) Every routine with both List and Iterator types complains that it can't >> dispatch on both types. Frankly, I'm not sure I want it dispatching at all. I'd >> think that since the user's view at this point is simply a private type, then >> these routines would not be created as tagged primitives. > >Why does the iterator type need to be controlled? What's your mental >model of what an iterator consists of? Mine generally says that an An iterator doesn't but a *safe* iterator does (as the list needs to know when its iterators go away). Perhaps I should have given this bit more fanfare, but this strawman version is using the fully-safe iterator approach. That rounds out the list of approaches used nicely. I think from a user-perspective it isn't a big change. The main change is that you no longer have to provide a list with the iterator for every op, which has to be viewed as an improvement. From an implementation perspective it complicates things a bit, but I don't think its fatal to real-time use anymore, which was my main concern. I've now provided an example of each kind of iterator. We need to make a decision on this issue. --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.