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,ce0900b60ca3f616 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-02 08:55:30 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: List container strawman Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 11:36:36 -0500 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9rui2b$kku$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <9rti6v$hcu$1@news.huji.ac.il> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1004718987 21150 136.170.200.133 (2 Nov 2001 16:36:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Nov 2001 16:36:27 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15668 Date: 2001-11-02T16:36:27+00:00 List-Id: I'd think that in *most* instances you aren't going to need to instantiate from within a subprogram. Hence, Controlled is probably not that much of a burden. (We don't live in a perfect world do we?) How does Ada.Strings.Unbounded handle not being limited? I didn't see an indication of it being derived from Controlled and it is doing something fairly similar to lists. Or does it rely on behind-the-scenes magic to cope with their dynamic nature? MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Ted Dennison" wrote in message news:WOzE7.10186$xS6.14012@www.newsranger.com... > > Ahh. It finally dawned on me what your objection to private was. (I'm a little > slow today again.) We are talking about what happens when you do a > "List1 := List2;", aren't we? > > Yeah, it is either going to have to be limited, or be derived from > Ada.Finalization.Controlled. Limited gets rid of the ability to perform > funtional operations on it; Controlled get rid of the ability to instantiate it > from within a subprogram. > > Have I mentioned lately how much I dislike the implementation of controlled > types? :-{ >