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: 2001-11-01 11:40:55 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: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 13:23:50 -0500 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9rs3vn$em6$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> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1004639031 15046 136.170.200.133 (1 Nov 2001 18:23:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Nov 2001 18:23:51 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:15574 Date: 2001-11-01T18:23:51+00:00 List-Id: You can always create a package that is capable of handling sorting and then depend on the caller simply to not do that if it isn't required or possible. However, this IMHO means the creation of lots of parameters that needlessly burden the caller with defining things that may not be at all necessary for the simple cases. Simply making the type limited private forces the caller to give you an assignment subprogram even if it only amounts to a ":=". Is that really necessary if all I want to do is pile up a bunch of employee address records? There are always compromises in design. One needs to trade off things like simplicity for power or generality - or the other way around. It depends on what the design objectives are. Since I favor getting *something* accepted as a semi-standard, I'd live with the complexity if there was a growing consensus that library X was the way to go. If the alternative is to custom-grow one so that there will be a more general acceptance, I'd opt for simplicity of use as a driving concern. Lots of parameters and options may yield lots of power or generality, but I think it a) stands in the way of getting it done and b) creates an interface that end users may find inconvenient enough to avoid. There are a million possible component libraries. Is it possible to get just one accepted as a "standard"? Maybe not, if it requires 100% agreement among all the potential users. 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/ "Jeffrey Carter" wrote in message news:3BE18A23.BC921FA9@boeing.com... > > This is hardly an issue. Look, for example, at > PragmARC.List_Unbounded_Unprotected. It imports a limited private formal > and an Assign procedure, and provides a generic Sort procedure that > imports "<". If you cannot define a meaningful "<" for your Element > type, or do not need sorting, you don't instantiate the Sort procedure. > Note that "=" is not needed for sorting. >