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,f5142427a147e149 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: "Adam Beneschan" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Equivalent keys/elements in Ada.Containers Maps and Sets Date: 24 Jan 2007 13:27:24 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <1169674043.880430.199350@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com> References: <45b60602$0$24602$39db0f71@news.song.fi> <1169567122.501077.189450@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com> <45b69499$0$31527$39db0f71@news.song.fi> <1169657427.881916.284570@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1169674062 19766 127.0.0.1 (24 Jan 2007 21:27:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 21:27:42 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050922 Fedora/1.7.12-1.3.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=cw1zeQwAAABOY2vF_g6V_9cdsyY_wV9w Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8519 Date: 2007-01-24T13:27:24-08:00 List-Id: On Jan 24, 1:18 pm, "Randy Brukardt" wrote: > "Matthew Heaney" wrote in messagenews:1169657427.881916.284570@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > It cannot be any other way, for the reason I gave above. > But that's irrelevant to whether or not the RM states it. And sooner or > later, someone will find some clever way to "use" the mistake, and then > claim that their implementer doesn't implement the standard properly. It doesn't even need someone to be "clever". I can envision that someone might write a "<" function that isn't perfectly designed, then they try using the package and they find it doesn't work, then they read the RM to try to get an idea of why, then they come across the section that describes what the requirements for "<" are, then they check carefully and find that the "<" they wrote meets those requirements (even though it doesn't make the equivalence relation transitive), then they scratch their heads trying to figure out why things aren't working, and eventually they go berserk and vow never to code in anything besides C ever again. -- Adam