BC components for indefinite types?

BC components for indefinite types?

[jpwoodruff]

Hello all

I'm a fan of the Ada95 Booch components and I recently find myself
wishing I could have a map of an indefinite type (and I suspect
there's a set or a bag in my future).

I have installed bc-20070822 and I have looked briefly at bc-20090226
which does not appear to address my question.  There are
bc-indefinite_containers, and there are a couple of his children, but
no maps.

Is it possible that I missed a memo?  Or is it up to me to piece
together the (admittedly few) items?

It may be relevant that I'm a hobbyist, and I am still grounded in the
twentieth century: Ada95 and gnat 3.15.

John

Re: BC components for indefinite types?

[guerrier.cachalot]

A little question : What in the 2005 revision has did you push to stay
in Ada95 ?
Or maybe this message is a past echo, created by the quantum risks of
the gigantic neural world network.
Excuse me I can't help you, it's late and I'm half-asleep. Good night.

Re: BC components for indefinite types?

[sjw]

On May 22, 11:55 pm, jpwoodruff <jpwoodr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm a fan of the Ada95 Booch components and I recently find myself
> wishing I could have a map of an indefinite type (and I suspect
> there's a set or a bag in my future).

I take this as a feature request! Always easier to be motivated if
there's a user.

> I have installed bc-20070822 and I have looked briefly at bc-20090226
> which does not appear to address my question.  There are
> bc-indefinite_containers, and there are a couple of his children, but
> no maps.
>
> Is it possible that I missed a memo?  Or is it up to me to piece
> together the (admittedly few) items?

No memo.

A question for you: the current BC.Indefinite_Containers support all
the forms (Bounded, Dynamic, Unbounded, Unmanaged) but I'm inclined to
think that most users of indefinite containers would be satisfied with
Bounded and Unmanaged. Or even further, with a new
BC.Indefinite_Unmanaged_Containers tree that manages storage
internally without the need for you to bother with storage pools at
all. Of course, this is getting perilously close to (if not past) the
point where one should just migrate to Ada.Containers!

Re: BC components for indefinite types?

[jpwoodruff]

On May 22, 7:39 pm, guerrier.cacha...@gmail.com wrote:
> A little question : What in the 2005 revision has did you push to stay
> in Ada95 ?

I wasn't pushed from Ada05; instead I avoided the pull.  As I'm a
hobbyist the pull on me was minuscule - I will disseminate no lasting
artifacts.

Some of my component inventory weren't Ada05 compliant, so I chose
indolent obsolescence over the joys of configuration management.  Lots
of my exercises are "just like that other one, except ...".  Therefore
it benefits me to leave things mostly alone.

I take Simon's point that the standard probably should displace the
bc's.  Perhaps I should schedule an attempt to upgrade.  Right after
the other activities with higher priority.

Regards
John

Re: BC components for indefinite types?

[sjw]

On May 24, 3:59 am, jpwoodruff <jpwoodr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I take Simon's point that the standard probably should displace the
> bc's.  Perhaps I should schedule an attempt to upgrade.  Right after
> the other activities with higher priority.

The BCs (and probably other similar libraries) offer support for
features not available with Ada.Containers (you might want to use your
own memory management ie storage pools; or you might need wholly stack-
based operation). But if you are starting out now with no historical
baggage or unusual requirements such as the above, you ought to use
Ada.Containers.