Re: why not

[Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>]

Matthew Heaney wrote:

> Among C++ programmers, you would probably just be told "don't do this"
> (which is OK by me -- I happen to like the STL).  But in the Ada culture we
> would try to design a component such that this scenario couldn't happen (or
> at least have a run-time error of some kind).
> 
> So it's not clear that components exactly like the STL would ever be adopted
> by the standards commitee.

In fact, there are "safe STL" implementations which would catch such errors.
You specify at compile time whether the checking code should be enabled.
The checking actually goes a little further, to implement "concept checks".
That is, since C++ template type parameters don't offer the ability to specify
requirements on the type, concept checkers do this. They can catch errors at
compile time, and are implemented by various template tricks that true C++
fans adore and which would probably drive true Ada fans up a wall :-)

Of course, the C++ default mode is unsafe :-)

Anyway, that's what I was getting at. The STL is perfect for C++. If there was
a library that was perfect for Ada, you would know it, and everyone would be
champing at the bit to standardize it.