From: adam@irvine.com
Subject: Re: Active Iteration (was: How to use abstract data types)
Date: 1998/05/13
Date: 1998-05-13T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6jcov8$ske$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> (raw)
Matthew, thanks for all the information. It helps to be exposed to a
number of different approaches, so once I understand them all, I can
pick which one seems best.
A question about one thing you wrote:
> The dynamic approach is a bit more flexible, but it could be made to work
> (but see below). Notice that you've already made a static commitment in
> your case statement (which is by definition static). The
> Let_Client_Play_With_Library could have been made into a generic, and
> instantiated once per library (ie once per brach of the case statement).
> Something like:
> procedure Let_Client_Play_With_Test_Lib is
> new Let_Client_Play (Test_Library...);
>
> procedure Let_Client_Play_With_Another_Test_Lib is
> new Let_Client_Play (Another_Test_Library...);
Regarding the example at LRM 3.9.3(15-16):
package Sets is
subtype Element_Type is Natural;
type Set is abstract tagged null record;
function Empty return Set is abstract;
function Union(Left, Right : Set) return Set is abstract;
function Intersection(Left, Right : Set) return Set is abstract;
function Unit_Set(Element : Element_Type) return Set is abstract;
procedure Take(Element : out Element_Type; From : in out Set)
is abstract;
end Sets;
Notes on the example: Given the above abstract type, one could
then derive various (nonabstract) extensions of the type,
representing alternative implementations of a set. One might use
a bit vector, but impose an upper bound on the largest element
representable, while another might use a hash table, trading off
space for flexibility.
It seems to me that, if your two choices are a bit vector and a hash
table, it's likely that other modules in the program that use a Set
would make this choice statically, because they'd already have an idea
of the upper bound on elements in the set. My question: Would you
therefore choose instead to use a generic to implement a "Set"? If
not, but if you would choose to use a generic to implement a Library
in my example, what's is the difference between the two examples that
would cause you to use different language constructs to implement
them?
-- thanks, Adam
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
next reply other threads:[~1998-05-13 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1998-05-13 0:00 adam [this message]
1998-05-13 0:00 ` Active Iteration (was: How to use abstract data types) Matthew Heaney
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1998-05-08 0:00 adam
1998-05-09 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1998-05-09 0:00 ` Simon Wright
1998-05-05 0:00 Matthew Heaney
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox