Re: Container reqs

["Ehud Lamm" <mslamm@mscc.huji.ac.il>]

Lutz Donnerhacke <lutz@iks-jena.de> wrote in message
news:slrn9slt9m.i2.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de...
> * Ehud Lamm wrote:
> >* From my experiens the item type is best accepted as a generic paramter
(I
> >say this, before anyone suggests and "Object" type, and we start fighting
> >over MI)
>
>    type Item is (<>) tagged abstract limited private;
>
> in order to build collections of tasks and more.
>
>    type Item is exception;
>
> *grin*
>
> Bute seriosly it's necessary, that the same item occurs in several
> collections at once. It must be possible to build stacks of lists and hold
a
> task element in a list and a hash simultaniously. Good luck.
>

So we need defaults. "take a private type and supply default named
operations like Assign"

But, I think we should decide on the semantics. If you can use by-reference
semantics, you can solv emany of these simply by instantiating with access
types. This can be problematic, but where applicable cansave us a  lot of
trouble..


> Of course ... provide algorithms with different size/time constraints.
> _Prove_ them correctly and derivate the size/time constraints.
> Do not assume special derivations for those algorithms, so allow
algorithms
> over native Ada types.

Ok.
<aside>Now when will we have speicalization of generics...</aside>

> Keep them threadsafe and multiaccessed, i.e. allow the usage of active
> Iterator to create further Iterators which in turn modify the structure.

I don't see any problem with this.