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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f2690a5e963b61b6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "MMM" <terekhov@emc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GCC 4.0 Ada.Containers Cursor danger.
Date: 12 Jul 2005 21:16:00 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1121228160.445437.171480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References: <z--dnRI60_7j_lHfRVn-qw@megapath.net>
   <tyi72ga8ch55$.3tea03tbwrtx.dlg@40tude.net>
   <42cd064c$0$10817$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net>
   <k62rlp2n1ls3.1cnwufmnuit7v.dlg@40tude.net>
   <42cda8c4$0$22780$9b4e6d93@newsread2.arcor-online.net>
   <1u3hh2597i4ne$.1ryetugksbmus.dlg@40tude.net>
   <uslyp8mmb.fsf@earthlink.net>
   <1121093807.949660.274060@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <1121124248.600055.292320@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
   <1121137531.752285.44280@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <946e7$42d3c64d$4995421$28449@ALLTEL.NET>
   <1121179909.262566.192270@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
   <5a73f$42d40166$4995149$5993@ALLTEL.NET>
   <1121194262.036046.38230@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <1121195712.513120.70330@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <1121198441.766238.303580@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
   <pvqdnaQVAoNys0nfRVn-3g@megapath.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.107.234.224
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1121228165 28893 127.0.0.1 (13 Jul 2005 04:16:05
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 04:16:05 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <pvqdnaQVAoNys0nfRVn-3g@megapath.net>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=24.107.234.224;
   posting-account=0PrGnQwAAAAhG4fw_pPdaColajHpyOJW
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3612
Date: 2005-07-12T21:16:00-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Randy Brukardt wrote:
>
> Because a hash implementation is impossible for Ada unless you make it
> visible to the user (by passing a hash function as a generic parameter). At
> which point it is no longer unordered, it has turned into an "unspecified
That is not correct in general. That is correct if you explicitly
require order preserving hash function. See for example
http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/orderpresmph.html
In general order is implementation dependent and in some cases depends
on insertion order.
> ordered" container. As a practical matter, a hashed container is much harder
> for the user to use than an ordered one. (An ordered one always will work
Use an ordered one then - list or vector.
> with reasonable time complexity; a hashed one is very sensitive to the
That depends on the task at hand of course.
> quality of the hash function. Writing a good hash function is an art, not a
> science, and often the best answer is not obvious. I always run tests for
> various hash functions on sample data, and that is not practical for the Q&D
> uses that containers are best suited for.)
> 
>                    Randy.
> 
Mikhail