From: sjw <simon.j.wright@mac.com>
Subject: Re: BC components for indefinite types?
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 13:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 2009-05-24T13:33:01-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <818d166b-5e42-41bb-953e-e3e3d9793f6f@n21g2000vba.googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: b3b05502-f05e-4315-9782-e98998e14daf@z8g2000prd.googlegroups.com
On May 24, 3:59 am, jpwoodruff <jpwoodr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I take Simon's point that the standard probably should displace the
> bc's. Perhaps I should schedule an attempt to upgrade. Right after
> the other activities with higher priority.
The BCs (and probably other similar libraries) offer support for
features not available with Ada.Containers (you might want to use your
own memory management ie storage pools; or you might need wholly stack-
based operation). But if you are starting out now with no historical
baggage or unusual requirements such as the above, you ought to use
Ada.Containers.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-24 20:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-22 22:55 BC components for indefinite types? jpwoodruff
2009-05-23 1:39 ` guerrier.cachalot
2009-05-24 2:59 ` jpwoodruff
2009-05-24 20:33 ` sjw [this message]
2009-05-23 9:37 ` sjw
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox