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,ac39a12d5faf5b14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-19 06:29:36 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Grace and Maps (was Re: Development process in the Ada community) Date: 19 Apr 2002 06:29:36 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <4519e058.0204190529.559a47ae@posting.google.com> References: <3CB46975.90408@snafu.de> <3CBAFFEE.2080708@snafu.de> <4519e058.0204171036.6f0a7394@posting.google.com> <3CBDD795.4060706@snafu.de> <4519e058.0204180800.44fac012@posting.google.com> <3CBF0341.8020406@mail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.115.221.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1019222976 23490 127.0.0.1 (19 Apr 2002 13:29:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Apr 2002 13:29:36 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22781 Date: 2002-04-19T13:29:36+00:00 List-Id: "Marin David Condic" wrote in message news:... > 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