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!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!atl-c03.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!atl-c08.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!pc03.usenetserver.com!ALLTEL.NET-a2kHrUvQQWlmc!not-for-mail Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:44:08 -0500 From: "Marc A. Criley" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) 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> <42cb8d21$0$22761$9b4e6d93@newsread2.arcor-online.net> <42cd064c$0$10817$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net> <42cda8c4$0$22780$9b4e6d93@newsread2.arcor-online.net> <1u3hh2597i4ne$.1ryetugksbmus.dlg@40tude.net> <1121093807.949660.274060@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1121124248.600055.292320@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1121137531.752285.44280@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <946e7$42d3c64d$4995421$28449@ALLTEL.NET> <1121179909.262566.192270@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <1121179909.262566.192270@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <5a73f$42d40166$4995149$5993@ALLTEL.NET> X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenetserver.com Organization: UseNetServer.com X-Trace: 5a73f42d40166a13cf4ec05993 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12016 Date: 2005-07-12T12:44:08-05:00 List-Id: MMM wrote: I wrote: >> If the container is identified as being "unordered", e.g. set or map, >> then it is a programming error to rely on elements being produced, >> via iterator or cursor, in any particular/repeatable order. >> >> If I needed to rely on the ordering--in the same or across >> implementations--I would utilize an "ordered" container. > Exactly. But the original claim was that "unordered" containers do not > exist. Unordered vs ordered vs sorted is part of the abstraction. A plain vanilla "set" is unordered, even though any implementor knows there's going to be an internal ordering that is used for iterating and such. From the point of view of my application utilizing an unordered set container, there can be no expected ordering of the elements, and relying upon (or even expecting) one when sequentially processing the container's contents would be a programming error. -- Marc A. Criley -- www.mckae.com -- DTraq - XPath In Ada - XML EZ Out --