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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,8eff44ec1bcf8433 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-24 18:40:51 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!lsanca1-snf1!news.gtei.net!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3BD76D99.52D5EE84@acm.org> From: Jeffrey Carter X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Container reqs References: <9qctpn$lil$1@news.huji.ac.il> <3nCy7.29644$ev2.35903@www.newsranger.com> <9qfgla$7sb$3@news.huji.ac.il> <9qnflg$pm$1@news.huji.ac.il> <3BCF57C8.DE99D9C@boeing.com> <3BD0E523.E23FB134@acm.org> <3BD4D157.C96BBAAD@acm.org> <%geB7.39480$ev2.46195@www.newsranger.com> <3BD626BF.4CAEAF69@acm.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 01:40:50 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.133.140.93 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 1003974050 206.133.140.93 (Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:40:50 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:40:50 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net X-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:37:02 PDT (newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15159 Date: 2001-10-25T01:40:50+00:00 List-Id: Ted Dennison wrote: > > True. But when you take that approach you have to do one of two things: > > 1) Force *every* user, including the >90% using only non-limited definite types, > to create an "assign" procedure so that they can instantiate the container > package. One of my personal no-no's of design is forcing extra work of this > magnitude on every user to support an exceptional case. > > 2) Create separate versions of the same component for use with > limited/indefinite types. > > I see that you chose 1, and tried to mitigate the effort with another helper > generic. But again, all this is complicating things significantly for the > benifit of a small percentage of users. There is also the issue of precision of specification that I mentioned in an earlier post. This is the only way in Ada to specify that the generic only uses assignment. This is, I think, a failing of Ada, but considering that in 1980 no mainstream languages had any equivalent of limited types, I can't fault it very much. -- Jeff Carter "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries." Monty Python & the Holy Grail