Re: Container reqs

["Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org>]

I grok that, but it still seems to me that it would be possible to start
with:

package ASCL.Basic_Containers.Lists is
package ASCL.Basic_Containers.Maps is

(Throw in a very small handful of other things if you like and make these
generic to take private, limited private, tagged private, or
whatever-you-like, generic data and I'll bet this would cover some really
huge amount of realestate in your garden variety Workstation/PC apps.)

...And from there branch out into all sorts of variants - some that might
support an OO-Inheritance style, some that would have dozens of generic
parameters that let you cinfigure it eighteen ways from Tuesday, some that
provide static storage & protected access for realtime, etc. The point is
that this original branch will serve lots of needs and doesn't really hamper
extension. No reason that there can't be added:

ASCL.OO_Containers.Lists
ASCL.Realtime_Containers.Lists
ASCL.Booch_Containers...
...etc...

Or even extending it to:

ASCL.Mathematics...
ASCL.Sort_Search...
ASCL.OS_Interface...
ASCL.Graphics...
ASCL.GUI...

I think if we had those two (or some small, single digit number) packages
and got some kind of consensus that the compiler vendors would distribute
that much with their compilers, we'd be WELL on our way to forming up a more
sophisticated Ada Standard Component Library. If the vendors would accept
ASCL.Basic_Containers as a branch, they could opt in/out on any additional
branches that got dreamed up. But you'd have A Good Start(tm) and one-up on
numerous other languages out there.

I'm thinking that if the discussion surrounds itself around adopting
this-or-that particular existing library, it will go on forever because it
is too hard to build a consensus on the dozens of components all at once and
too many people have a vested interest in getting this-or-that library
adopted. Getting a consensus on only two or three things is much more
likely. Starting from some bottom-dead-center position means everybody is
disadvantaged equally. Starting small keeps the objectives achievable.

Just a thought - its better to get *something* done than to endlessly
discuss the "Perfect Component Library"

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Ehud Lamm" <mslamm@mscc.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:9r5ues$ns6$1@news.huji.ac.il...
>
> > It can *always* get expanded into different variations and flavors -
> > not unlike what you see under Ada.Strings.
>
> Right. But only if the original design is extendable. Hence the reason for
> this discussion.
>