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, LOTS_OF_MONEY 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 12:22:51 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!psiuk-p2!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 10:24:24 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9r6iuq$ocp$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <9qctpn$lil$1@news.huji.ac.il> <3nCy7.29644$ev2.35903@www.newsranger.com> <9qfgla$7sb$3@news.huji.ac.il> <9qnflg$pm$1@news.huji.ac.il> <3BCF57C8.DE99D9C@boeing.com> <3BD0E523.E23FB134@acm.org> <3BD4D157.C96BBAAD@acm.org> <%geB7.39480$ev2.46195@www.newsranger.com> <3BD626BF.4CAEAF69@acm.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1003933466 24985 136.170.200.133 (24 Oct 2001 14:24:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Oct 2001 14:24:26 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:15148 Date: 2001-10-24T14:24:26+00:00 List-Id: I'd rather see a plain-vanilla initial case that let me make lists of Integers, Floats, Strings and Records (no tags, no discriminants, no pointers, no nothing but plain vanilla records). That would probably handle 75% of the things that I would normally do. >From there, a variant of the same packages could be created that dealt with limited private or other unusual generic parameter requirements. (Like requiring "<" and "=" operators for sorting limited private stuff...) The other variants can provide a nearly identical package spec, just offer different advantages. Document the reasons for different variants so that the user can choose the best variant for the job at hand and you've got something there. (Why do we have Ada.Strings.Fixed, Ada.Strings.Bounded, Ada.Strings.Unbounded otherwise? I'm lobbying to get the equivalent of Ada.Strings.Fixed accepted and we can worry about the rest later.) Give me the plain vanilla case and leave a branch open for more sophisticated cases and I'll have infinitely more standard components than I have right now. 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/ "Ted Dennison" wrote in message news:lKzB7.41007$ev2.48168@www.newsranger.com... > > True. But when you take that approach you have to do one of two things: > > 1) Force *every* user, including the >90% using only non-limited definite types, > to create an "assign" procedure so that they can instantiate the container > package. One of my personal no-no's of design is forcing extra work of this > magnitude on every user to support an exceptional case. > > 2) Create separate versions of the same component for use with > limited/indefinite types. > > > I see that you chose 1, and tried to mitigate the effort with another helper > generic. But again, all this is complicating things significantly for the > benifit of a small percentage of users. > > Is there anyone out there who really thinks that being able to handle such types > is a requirement, given that you can still handle pointers to them, and doing so > would complicate the facility for everyone? >