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: 2002-04-22 16:59:36 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-out.nuthinbutnews.com!propagator-sterling!news-in.nuthinbutnews.com!news-in-sterling.newsfeed.com!newsfeed.onecall.net!chcgil2-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Grace and Maps (was Re: Development process in the Ada community) Date: 22 Apr 2002 18:59:15 -0500 Organization: LJK Software Message-ID: <6UiUeOSF$5R5@eisner.encompasserve.org> 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> <3CC1C6B3.6060306@telepath.com> <3CC21747.5000501@telepath.com> <4519e058.0204220531.3a47ba39@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1019519969 15641 192.135.80.34 (22 Apr 2002 23:59:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 23:59:29 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22941 Date: 2002-04-22T18:59:15-05:00 List-Id: In article <4519e058.0204220531.3a47ba39@posting.google.com>, dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison) writes: > Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message news:... >> In article <3CC21747.5000501@telepath.com>, Ted Dennison writes: >> >> > On second thought, we really ought to get some kind of consensus on >> > requirements before rushing headlong into design. If nothing else, it >> > will save a lot of arguments. >> > >> > Requirements I think ought to be included (using the usual should/shall >> > language): >> > >> > Maps shall provide for key lookup in no worse than O(logn) average time >> > and O(n) worst case (where n is the # of elements in the map). >> > >> > Maps shall provide for creation of a sorted list or array, or traversal >> > in sorted order, in no worse than O(n) time. (In other words, the map is >> > kept sorted as elements are added). >> > >> > Maps should provide an interface consistent with Lists, as far as is >> > practicable. >> > >> > Comments? >> >> While the interface should not _prevent_ implementations from >> achieving certain performance goals, I don't think performance >> goals should be part of the requirements. If a vendor wants to >> provide a relatively slow implementation, that is their choice, >> just like their choice regarding how fast A := B'length should >> perform. > > I can see your point. For real-time use its vital to know this. I'd > prefer to see it in the requrements that Maps are usable in real-time > once the map is already built, which is what these requirements are > getting at. Certain operating systems are not suitable for "real-time"[1] use. Why would you place a requirement on compiler vendors for those operating systems that they support a performance level no genuine customer would ever use ? What aspect of the current Ada95 standard has such a performance specification ? [1] For suitable definitions of "real-time". In fact, for suitable definitions of "operating systems" :-)