Re: List container strawman 1.1

[Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com>]

In article <3BEACA5A.9030100@acm.org>, Roy Bell says...
>> Roy Bell <rmbell@acm.org> wrote in message news:3BE7DA00.8020807@acm.org...
>> 
>>>>
>>>>with Ada.Finalization;
>>>>with Ada.Streams;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Can we defer the routines that require Ada.Streams to a child unit?
>
>All of the other proposed additions/deletions are insignificant by 
>comparison. I have seen 100s of Kbytes added to the size of the 
>executable when IO is used.

I don't believe there is any I/O in Ada.Streams. Perhaps you are thinking of
Ada.Streams.Stream_IO?

The problem with putting stuff in a child is that Ada rules would require it to
be a generic as well. That would lead to the situation where proper use requires
instantiating the first package, then using *it* (not the generic but the
instantiation of it) to instantiate the second package. Its not too horrible one
you figure it out. But this is exactly what Booch does that everyone is saying
is unacceptable. So I feel that we really need to avoid using child packages
unless there is a compelling reason.

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. 
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.