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,cda33fc7f63c2885 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-01-09 07:20:37 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: list strawman Date: 9 Jan 2002 07:20:36 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <4519e058.0201090720.722afa78@posting.google.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.115.221.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1010589637 17030 127.0.0.1 (9 Jan 2002 15:20:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Jan 2002 15:20:37 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18688 Date: 2002-01-09T15:20:37+00:00 List-Id: Thomas Wolf wrote in message news:... > Some comments on that Strawman 1.4 interface: > 2. Element Arrays > ----------------- > > type Element_Array is array (Natural range <>) of Element; > > Why "Natural range <>"? I'd prefer "Positive range <>" similar to the This has already been discussed, and it has in fact been changed to positive. That's one of a couple of changes made since the last strawman rev. > 4. Removing from a list end > --------------------------- > You don't always want to get the old element when you remove an item > from the list. Hence I'd add the following: > > procedure Remove > (Target : in out List; > List_End : in Direction); We are past the point where we can add routines on a whim. People are actually implementing it and writing code to work with it now. If a routine is going to be added or changed at this point, it will be only be for a very good reason (eg: A bug, or a very serious implementation or usability problem). > Two things: first, 'Quit' must be an "in out"-parameter, and second, That's another thing that has already been discussed and changed. > 7. Modifying an element at a given location > ------------------------------------------- > > procedure Modify (Subject : in out List; > Location : in Iterator; > New_Value : in Element); > > Why is the subject list passed along? To be consistent with the > other operations on locations, it should be omitted. Good catch there. I think I may have actually implemented this and not noticed. Consider "Subject" removed. > 9. Equality > ----------- > Is there any harm done by putting them explicitly in the public part? One does not put things in the public part of a package that do not need to go there. So the proper question for putting things in the public part of a package is not "Does it do any harm there?", but rather, "Does it absolutely have to go there?" Again, I think the proper model here is package Standard, which put a commented-out version in the public part. > 10. Stream Attributes > --------------------- > There's no need at all to make 'Stream_Read' and 'Stream_Write' public. > I'd put them into the private part. Again, this has already been discussed and done. For the rest of your points, I have not addressed them because they have already been debated and a decision has already been reached over the last 3 months or so. Rather than have us rehash everything that has been said before just for your benifit, I suggest you go review the discussions and the rationale for the decisions at Google groups.