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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,8eff44ec1bcf8433 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-24 08:25:00 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Container reqs Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:08:02 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9r6i04$o1r$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <9qctpn$lil$1@news.huji.ac.il> <3BCA86C7.BB252751@acm.org> <%jYy7.31350$ev2.37672@www.newsranger.com> <3BCD7C50.647ADBD0@brighton.ac.uk> <9qk44b$utk$1@news.huji.ac.il> <3BD527A8.93C1F68B@brighton.ac.uk> <9r3umu$hvo$1@news.huji.ac.il> <9r4mr9$os0$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9r5ues$ns6$1@news.huji.ac.il> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1003932484 24635 136.170.200.133 (24 Oct 2001 14:08:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Oct 2001 14:08:04 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15131 Date: 2001-10-24T14:08:04+00:00 List-Id: 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" 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. >