Re: Grace and Maps (was Re: Development process in the Ada community)

[dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison)]

"Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> wrote in message news:<a9n0tk$6fs$1@nh.pace.co.uk>...
> When the whole discussion of what eventually began to emerge as Grace got
> started, there seemed to be a consensus that if you had lists and maps, most
> of the other sorts of containers just wouldn't be that big a deal. Lists and
> Maps just cover the bulk of what you need to do in most practical
> programming situations. I wouldn't be surprised that C++ programmers have
> had similar experience. At some point you go: "Maybe there's a more
> efficient structure for this data, but I'm not doing realtime and here's a
> solution already put together for me, so lets just go with it for looking up
> information..."

I've actually been thinking along similar lines. What I'm wondering is
if we should keep the list package as "Lists.Unbounded", or if we
should just bag the whole bounded/unbounded issue and make it "Lists".


> IIRC, there was general agreement to concentrate on Lists as a start and
> then, when the structure of it was settled, a similar spec would be
> discussed for Maps.
> 
> If the Lists specification is considered done, perhaps its time to look at
> it with an eye towards proposing a Map specification?

Indeed. I still don't have the website up unfortunately (I've never
used ssl before, which is required to upload things, so I'm having
"issues".) But the last published proposal spec is still available at
http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/Containers-Lists-Unbounded.ads.html
to refresh everyone's memory.

-- 
T.E.D.
Home     -  mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison)
Homepage -  http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html