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!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!s48g2000cws.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 18:22:40 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <1169691760.029031.54630@s48g2000cws.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> <1169674043.880430.199350@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com> <1169679017.011443.231540@q2g2000cwa.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 1169691768 30028 127.0.0.1 (25 Jan 2007 02:22:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 02:22:48 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1169679017.011443.231540@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> 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: s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=cw1zeQwAAABOY2vF_g6V_9cdsyY_wV9w Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8528 Date: 2007-01-24T18:22:40-08:00 List-Id: On Jan 24, 2:50 pm, "Matthew Heaney" wrote: > This is a silly argument. The Ada container library is modeled on the > C++ STL, and in that library the requirement for "strict weak ordering" > for the binary predicate for ordered associative containers is clear. > > Whatever putative difficulties Ada programmers have defining a > less-than operator for instantiating a generic container, that is no > different from the same problems C++ programmers would have defining a > binary predicate for instantiating a container template. Yet somehow, > some way, thousands of C++ programmers have managed to instantiate > their container templates without any problems. I hope you're not > suggesting that C++ programmers are smarter than Ada programmers! No, of course not. But I guess I am suggesting that the Ada programming community expects the RM to be correct. The idea that we should let the RM say something is correct when it isn't, because nobody will ever do it wrong anyway, isn't the Ada way. That sounds more like the C way. The same "C way" that says "We don't need to check our input for sanity because nobody will enter insane input anyway." "We don't need to check for buffer overflow because no data is going to be that large anyway." Or maybe that's the Microsoft way---I don't know. But I think our standards are higher than that. > Ambiguities in the Ada RM happen all the time, that's why we have an > ARG. There's nothing special about (assumed) ambiguity in the > requirement for strict weak ordering. But there's no ambiguity in the RM. The RM's requirements for the "<" function are unambiguous. Wrong, but unambiguous. -- Adam