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: 103376,8eff44ec1bcf8433
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-18 02:04:03 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!opentransit.net!proxad.net!feeder2-1.proxad.net!news2-2.free.fr!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <3BCE9ACE.40B6BC3D@free.fr>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:03:10 +0200
From: Jean-Marc Bourguet <jbourguet@free.fr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.7 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Container reqs
References: <9qctpn$lil$1@news.huji.ac.il>
 <slrn9slt9m.i2.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de> <3BCC01B1.18C18C98@free.fr>
 <3BCC6CB7.20BAA30D@boeing.com> <3BCD2EC3.3B3C4498@free.fr>
 <hPfz7.32664$ev2.39234@www.newsranger.com> <3BCD91D9.C77668AA@free.fr>
 <8ghz7.32783$ev2.39537@www.newsranger.com> <3BCDB29B.EBD01D8C@free.fr>
 <slrn9st1pj.hr.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: Guest of ProXad - France
NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Oct 2001 11:04:02 MEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 158.140.208.29
X-Trace: 1003395842 news2-2.free.fr 2309 158.140.208.29
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14869
Date: 2001-10-18T11:04:02+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:
> 
> * Jean-Marc Bourguet wrote:
> >But I don't think it is a good argument in favor of working hard and
> >complexifying the library in order to be able to modify a tree from
> >several tasks using shared iterators.
> 
> Multiple tasks modifying the same data structure simultanously is a common
> requirement for any larger application.

Yes  but in my experience
   * the data structure is often more complex than a simple container,
     so you need synchronization from outside the container and you need
     to encapsulate the whole data structure to provide the wanted
     interface 
   * the set of modifying operations allowed is often restricted so
     you need encapsulate the data structure not to expose
implementation
     details.

My conclusion was that it is not needed to complexify the library to
provide a synchronization which will often be also provided from the
user.
The only exception I've met where none of these two points did hold is a
queue.

-- Jean-Marc