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,FREEMAIL_FROM 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: 2002-04-24 19:29:39 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: Brian.Gaffney@myrealbox.com (Brian Gaffney) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Grace and Maps (was Re: Development process in the Ada community) Date: 24 Apr 2002 19:29:39 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5e9b8c34.0204241829.67633bdf@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> <4519e058.0204190529.559a47ae@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.208.80.79 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1019701779 20484 127.0.0.1 (25 Apr 2002 02:29:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Apr 2002 02:29:39 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23093 Date: 2002-04-25T02:29:39+00:00 List-Id: "Marin David Condic" wrote in message news:... > "Ted Dennison" wrote in message > news:4519e058.0204190529.559a47ae@posting.google.com... > > > > 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". > > > > . . . > > If we put out a Grace.Lists and a Grace.Maps, that would certainly be a > really good start. If at a later point in time there was some kind of > groundswell indicating that there really was a need for bounded versions, > why couldn't we go with Grace.Lists.Bounded as an extension? The only reason > I can think of is that it isn't consistent with Ada.Strings. If I get your intent, I don't think this would work since Grace.List would be generic. (Which would be a pain if you needed Bounded because you didn't wish to instantiate an Unbounded.) . . . > My inclination would be to make Grace.Lists and Grace.Maps and add children > at a later date if we thought we needed special cases. I'd again make an > appeal for some version of "Grace.Containers.Lists" and > "Grace.Containers.Maps" (or some variant thereof) so that there might also > be easy extensions like: "Grace.Linear_A", "Grace.Statistics", "Grace.XML", > "Grace.Whatever_Else_Seems_Like_A_Good_Idea"... The names aren't real > important to me but thinking along the line of problem domains & dividing > things up under a subheading is something I think would be beneficial in the > long run. I like the Grace.Containers.Lists idea. Perhaps the children could be something like Grace.Containers.Bounded.Lists? Then you could have a Grace.Containers.Maps and Grace.Containers.Bounded.Maps, etc. I don't know how well this would extend to other types of containers. Another way to get a default (assuming anyone could stand it) would be to provide the different version (unbounded, bounded, etc.) and uses a renames to define the 'default' type (i.e. generic package Grace.Containers.Lists renames Grace.Containers.Unbounded.Lists).