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-Thread: 103376,f2690a5e963b61b6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!proxad.net!proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!news.arcor.de!not-for-mail
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:52:48 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050331)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GCC 4.0 Ada.Containers Cursor danger.
References: <1120474891.635131.216700@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <1120575076.876798.108220@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <1120583470.429264.325450@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <osoo6gccqpnm.2o5eehhafwb1.dlg@40tude.net>
   <42cb8d21$0$22761$9b4e6d93@newsread2.arcor-online.net>
   <ldco4pwrxop4$.1py0a7isiagea.dlg@40tude.net>
   <z--dnRI60_7j_lHfRVn-qw@megapath.net>
 <1120740766.343393.168420@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <1120740766.343393.168420@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <42cd33ba$0$22784$9b4e6d93@newsread2.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 07 Jul 2005 15:52:59 MEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: ec4323e9.newsread2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=3T7?3SiG>nhd:IG0JE`:@gQ5U85hF6f;djW\KbG]kaMhU7^]5?JhlBn]RH[mKYL5EkhP3YJKgE\jl?@MDPDD<k>h
X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11934
Date: 2005-07-07T15:52:59+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dmitriy Anisimkov wrote:


> The checking of the cursors could take considerable size and
> performance. It is why i propose to have cursors implementation without
> cursors. Who need a cursors would pay by size and performance.

Could you give a real example, of some generality,
that shows why we don't need Cursors because Key-based
access is just as fast? Notice that it should be
of a general kind, see below.

> I'm sure that it is possibe to build project without cursors and with
> the same performance as with "unchecked_cursors", I did one, and do not
> "hash one element repeatable." and do not iterate over container by
> repeatable search.

But this argument, as it stands, ins't valid: You say that in a
special case you have been able to solve a problem
without repeated hasing and with one-time iteration for
searching. And based on this special case you say that
the general case can be solved in a similar way, without
loss in performance?