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 X-Google-Thread: 103376,a81d7835683dac7b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-09-13 05:18:04 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3F630AF4.5090203@noplace.com> From: Marin David Condic User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (OEM-HPQ-PRS1C03) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: maximum number of lines per spec (was: Bases 1.52) References: <4a4de33a.0309021059.53f71234@posting.google.com> <4060780.x1l89WMggb@linux1.krischik.com> <17eddf9f.0309092349.2ff22de2@posting.google.com> <1301057.xhkpTmYQhd@linux1.krischik.com> <17eddf9f.0309120258.cd58f31@posting.google.com> <17eddf9f.0309120949.2868f601@posting.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 12:18:04 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 165.247.67.224 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net 1063455484 165.247.67.224 (Sat, 13 Sep 2003 08:18:04 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 08:18:04 EDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:42442 Date: 2003-09-13T12:18:04+00:00 List-Id: I generally don't like arbitrary length constraints, but if you have to have one, why not aim for something a little more "functional" rather than number of lines? Say that a spec should not include more than a dozen types or two dozen subprograms as a goal - and overshooting the goal only means review & justification? MDC M�rio Amado Alves wrote: > > > You're right in principle of course, but the problem is that the > problem is not perfectly defined a priori in the case of containers > i.e. the range of possible extensions of the problem is still wide and > saying 50 lines is one way of focusing on one region of that range. > > Ada.String.Unbounded is so big because of all the (a) combinations > with String and Character for construction and conversion, and (b) > pairs procedure/function for the same operation. In the case of a > generic container package (a) is reduced if not eliminated. And (b) > is not essential, and can be rethinked considering other forces at > play (including desired sizes). > > All existing generic container packages have an essential signature > that fits well within 50 lines. > > Anyway you're right if you permit the future standard to be any number > of pages long. Just note there might be objections to this from the > educational world at least. I for one. > > Another force at play here is the general proposal to have a *minimal* > standard and a *big* Conventional Ada Library (outside the standard > but supported by a strong coalition of users and compiler vendors). -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jast.mil/ Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." -- Voltaire ======================================================================