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,ac39a12d5faf5b14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-24 06:54:44 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cyclone.socal.rr.com!cyclone3.kc.rr.com!news3.kc.rr.com!twister.socal.rr.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3CC6B932.75C468E1@san.rr.com> From: Darren New X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Grace and Maps (was Re: Development process in the Ada community) References: <3CB46975.90408@snafu.de> <3CBAFFEE.2080708@snafu.de> <4519e058.0204171036.6f0a7394@posting.google.com> <3CBDD795.4060706@snafu.de> <4519e058.0204180800.44fac012@posting.google.com> <3CBF0341.8020406@mail.com> <4519e058.0204190529.559a47ae@posting.google.com> <3CC1C6B3.6060306@telepath.com> <3CC21747.5000501@telepath.com> <4519e058.0204220534.2eb33730@posting.go <3CC48F34.5A474E0F@boeing.com> <3CC49C50.485AE213@san.rr.com> <3CC4B5C0.4D16077C@acm.org> <3CC4E9DA.E02BE0DA@san.rr.com> <7vznzukhzf.fsf@vlinux.voxelvision.no> <3CC5B161.C719C5D8@san.rr.com> <7vg01lwaku.fsf@vlinux.voxelvision.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:53:41 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.75.151.160 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com X-Trace: twister.socal.rr.com 1019656421 66.75.151.160 (Wed, 24 Apr 2002 06:53:41 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 06:53:41 PDT Organization: RoadRunner - West Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23050 Date: 2002-04-24T13:53:41+00:00 List-Id: Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen wrote: > I agree, not the thing you would want in a hard real time > safety-critical system. Buf for soft real time, non saftey critical > systems it's good enough. And it really can make a difference in > throughput in for instance applications like relational algebra > processing. Well, there's also the question of the malicious user, who intentionally inserts a lot of items that hash to the same value (over a web interface, say) and thereby breaks something. > Yes, although the reimplementation usually just consists of calling the > same hash functions with different parameters. After all, we don't > really care what we are hashing, all we need to know is the location > and size of the key, so one good hash function is really all you need. Hmmm... So if you have keys you can't break up? I mean, I'm not sure how you would make a generic hash function that would hash any record, or any array, or any private type, or ... In C it's easy - you cast the pointer to a char* and hash, and hope there's no randomly-initialized padding in the middle. I don't know how to do this in Ada, tho - it would seem that every private type (for example) would have to implement its own hash function. Wouldn't it? -- Darren New San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand. The 90/10 rule of toothpaste: the last 10% of the tube lasts as long as the first 90%.