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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a644fa9cd1a3869a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-12 17:29:27 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!uni-erlangen.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!ppp-1-18.cvx6.telinco.NET!not-for-mail From: "Nick Roberts" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: List container strawman 1.2 Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 01:07:52 -0000 Message-ID: <9spt1k$14snic$5@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de> References: <3BECA3B7.5020702@telepath.com> <3bef920f@pull.gecm.com> <3BEFFACC.4801D70D@boeing.com> <9sp5kr$fvm$1@nh.pace.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-1-18.cvx6.telinco.net (212.1.156.18) X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1005614965 38690380 212.1.156.18 (16 [25716]) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16384 Date: 2001-11-13T01:07:52+00:00 List-Id: I agree with not getting too purist about what properties lists do or don't classically have. However, I think I agree with Jeffrey on this one. After dealing with lists, I intend to propose one or two content-addressed array (contar) packages. The essence of a contar is that it has a specific index or key type as well as a specific data type. I suppose a contar is a kind of mapping (in alternative nomenclature). The 'key' point (sorry ;-) is that the index or key type is assumed to be ordered. This immediately opens the door to such things as sorting and duplicate denial. So, I suggest that these things are left to contars, and not loaded onto lists (and my proposed list is already gravid with concepts and operations). -- Best wishes, Nick Roberts "Marin David Condic" wrote in message news:9sp5kr$fvm$1@nh.pace.co.uk... > Maybe we shouldn't get to technical about it. If a feature is useful, does > it really matter that it doesn't satisfy some theoretical nicety? It is > probably more important to avoid making the basic list any more complicated > than it has to be - so we might be in agreement as to the end result. But I > wouldn't avoid the capability of eliminating/prohibiting duplicates > altogether if it was something that didn't cause the end user any additional > work for the basic case and didn't have any significant penalties in its > realization. > "Jeffrey Carter" wrote in message > news:3BEFFACC.4801D70D@boeing.com... > > > > This is not a property of lists. While it may be useful in some cases to > > have something list-like with this property, it should be a unique > > structure, not something that affects every use of the basic list > > component.