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: 103376,7ee10ec601726fbf X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-30 15:48:20 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: why not Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 18:08:46 -0500 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9rnbtv$5i4$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <3BC5D730.DA950CC7@boeing.com> <9q4pa7$1ad$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3BC6ACC8.23EF21BC@free.fr> <3BC71F54.1FFE78FA@boeing.com> <1KGx7.26476$ev2.35117@www.newsranger.com> <3BC7AD82.2A0CCCD4@acm.org> <9qhiqr$af0$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <1nDC7.180$6S7.92255364@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <9rjsak$bp3$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9rmhb9$o1b$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3BDEF0FE.B55FED9E@san.rr.com> <9rmuqi$es$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3BDF1F13.4B99361C@san.rr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1004483327 5700 136.170.200.133 (30 Oct 2001 23:08:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Oct 2001 23:08:47 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:15445 Date: 2001-10-30T23:08:47+00:00 List-Id: Well, we aren't exactly seeing a huge consensus here about what people want, right? :-) I just think it would be easier to start with something that is informally used in lots of places before proposing a change to the Ada standard with something with which there is potentially little experience. I think you'll find the compiler vendors are the ones who would raise objections to a container library as an appendix. Maybe I shouldn't try to state their case for them, but prior discussions seemed to go in the direction that it would be hard to write a verifiable standard and that the language standard wasn't the proper place for it. Since apparently C++ has succeeded in including a similar library in its standard, I wouldn't think the task is either impossible or totally undesirable. I'd just favor a more gradual approach. But if you want to crusade to get the Booch Components or some other collection of containers adopted as an appendix to the ARM, I won't try to stop you. I'd just bet against it unless there had already been some sort of reasonably widespread adoption by the vendors. (Look at Ada.Numerics. That got in because just about all compilers had *some* kind of numerics library providing *some* common features. It thus made sense to have a standard interface to what was already going on. Do we have any evidence of compilers being supplied with *any* container packages? If a few were, then you'd have a case for adoption as part of the language standard.) 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/ "Darren New" wrote in message news:3BDF1F13.4B99361C@san.rr.com... > Marin David Condic wrote: > > Yes, but..... Until you have a collection of code (or at least interfaces) > > that have maybe built up some experience with usability, you aren't sure if > > this is quite what the world wants. > > True. But for something like collection classes, maps and lists and > stuff like that, I think there's a fair amount of experience as to what > kinds of functionality folks want. Avoiding reinventing the same thing > over and over is part of the reason for such a package, implying that > folks have done this over and over. >