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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a81d7835683dac7b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-09-10 00:49:12 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: amado.alves@netcabo.pt (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1rio_Amado_Alves?=)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Bases 1.52
Date: 10 Sep 2003 00:49:11 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <17eddf9f.0309092349.2ff22de2@posting.google.com>
References: <4a4de33a.0309021059.53f71234@posting.google.com>
 <4060780.x1l89WMggb@linux1.krischik.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.113.164.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1063180151 13934 127.0.0.1 (10 Sep 2003 07:49:11
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Sep 2003 07:49:11 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:42344
Date: 2003-09-10T07:49:11+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Martin Krischik wrote:
> Bases 1.52
> 
> 51   This parameter shall have the signature
>        type Element (<>) is private;
> 
> Why restrict to just one signature?
> 
> I have made very good experiences with containers based on:
> 
>    type Item (<>) is abstract tagged private;
> 
> This frees my applications from using heap memory when I need to store
> Item'Class instances....

I'm not sure about the memory management implications, but doesn't the
first signature include the second, in the sense that it accepts
tagged actuals?

Restricting to just one signature is simply to keep the library small.