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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,TO_NO_BRKTS_FROM_MSSP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,fdc75443ea18fb32 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-29 10:10:26 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!newsranger.com!www.newsranger.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: Ted Dennison References: <%QRM7.39743$xS6.65958@www.newsranger.com> <9u0qhb$pq5$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9u0ujd$rhg$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3C05E289.C254DA29@mida.se> <3C065B15.5CA7D10B@boeing.com> Subject: Re: Standard Queue status Message-ID: <9SuN7.42555$xS6.71870@www.newsranger.com> X-Abuse-Info: When contacting newsranger.com regarding abuse please X-Abuse-Info: forward the entire news article including headers or X-Abuse-Info: else we will not be able to process your request X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsranger.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 13:10:13 EST Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 18:10:13 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17175 Date: 2001-11-29T18:10:13+00:00 List-Id: In article <3C065B15.5CA7D10B@boeing.com>, Jeffrey Carter says... > >Mats Karlssohn wrote: >> Yes, the use of "Direction" is elegant, and converting to and from >> unbounded arrays seems useful. > >I don't know. Specifying the direction seems like control coupling. That's my problem with it exactly. Its nice to see I'm not the only classicly trained software engineer here. :-) I can usually get over such reservations if there is either some common code inside, or if it makes the interface more useful (eg: can use it in a loop). I don't think the latter will apply here, but the former might. >unconstrained arrays is trivial to implement with the standard features >of a list, so I'm not sure it should be in the basic package; on the >other hand, I'm not sure it shouldn't be there if it's going to be >defined at all. What I was thinking was just simple to- and from-list conversion routines, and some extra "&" functions using them as operands (but not products). Anything more sophisticated than that should probably go into a Lists.Fixed package, should we choose to make one. >mainly by one's imagination. So the general rule should be something >like: include the basic operations, operations that cannot be >efficiently implemented without directly manipulating the >implementation, and extremely common operations; exclude everything >else. Exactly. --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.