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,LOTS_OF_MONEY
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a644fa9cd1a3869a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-12 10:45:15 PST
From: "Martin Dowie" <martin.dowie@nospam.baesystems.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <3BECA3B7.5020702@telepath.com> <3bef920f@pull.gecm.com>
 <9soq34$be6$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <NLTH7.21885$xS6.33661@www.newsranger.com>
Subject: Re: List container strawman 1.2
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 18:39:13 -0000
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
NNTP-Posting-Host: ed125012.sd.edinbr.gmav.gecm.com
Message-ID: <3bf013e4$1@pull.gecm.com>
X-Trace: 12 Nov 2001 18:24:36 GMT, ed125012.sd.edinbr.gmav.gecm.com
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!btnet-peer0!btnet-feed3!btnet!newreader.ukcore.bt.net!pull.gecm.com!ed125012.sd.edinbr.gmav.gecm.com
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16352
Date: 2001-11-12T18:39:13+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:NLTH7.21885$xS6.33661@www.newsranger.com...
> In article <9soq34$be6$1@nh.pace.co.uk>, Marin David Condic says...
> >
> >Lots of ways of handling that. I agree that there are cases where you
want a
> >list to contain only one sample of a given element, but I'd prefer that
the
> >instantiation doesn't force someone to make that decision and have to
> >provide parameters that may be unnecessary for the simple cases. It could
>
> Agreed.
>
> After a sort it should be pretty easy to identify (and then remove) dups.
I'm
> not sure if its a common enough need to merit its own routine. I suppose a
> dup-removing sort could be introduced (as well as an Insert_Sorted_Unique
that
> raises an exception for a Dup, or somesuch). Perhaps after enough of
these, we'd
> have good material for Ehud's child package. :-)

Why 'after a sort'? The point would be to not let anyone insert duplicates
in the first place!

Hmmm, a child package though... I'll have a think and see if there is a nice
why to do it like that.

It could just be the applications I've used list in (and I do like a list
;-)
but almost all I can think of do require no duplicates...