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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.224.5.5 with SMTP id 5mr3486771qat.4.1379445643669; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 12:20:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.48.38 with SMTP id i6mr1758375qen.4.1379445643641; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 12:20:43 -0700 (PDT) Path: border1.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!d5no291377qap.0!news-out.google.com!gv3ni456qab.0!nntp.google.com!d5no326580qap.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 12:20:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <0dfe3c07-9a9c-441d-b258-0d4e544a393e@googlegroups.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=105.236.35.136; posting-account=p-xPhAkAAADjHQWEO7sFME2XBdF1P_2H NNTP-Posting-Host: 105.236.35.136 References: <4f66d847-d030-4aa9-8bdf-9bcc5f3a0852@googlegroups.com> <0dfe3c07-9a9c-441d-b258-0d4e544a393e@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <01dc8c06-4fdf-44c1-913e-3cdcc9fe7d03@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Multiple keys for a map From: Peter Brooks Injection-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:20:43 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Original-Bytes: 1840 Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:183374 Date: 2013-09-17T12:20:43-07:00 List-Id: On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 20:57:17 UTC+2, gautier...@hotmail.com wrote: > Hello, > > If you can stick with one answer per query, you can always glue several keys into one, like > > key1 & '#' key2 & '#' & key3 > > for strings or > > type Key_triplet is array(1..3) of Key_Type; > > and use Key_triplet instead of Key_type. > > For multiple answers... it is different. If keys are enumerated types you could loop through the type and collect answers. Otherwise, it's perhaps better to consider a DB. > Nice idea, thank you. I'll try the array idea, that looks as if it might be ideal. It should be fast too.