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 17:29:29 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!ppp-1-18.cvx6.telinco.NET!not-for-mail
From: "Nick Roberts" <nickroberts@adaos.worldonline.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: List container: Insert and Delete
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 01:28:03 -0000
Message-ID: <9spt1m$14snic$7@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de>
References: <mailman.1005537083.14431.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <9sok8j$142am0$3@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de> <3BF00692.3CFED98C@boeing.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-1-18.cvx6.telinco.net (212.1.156.18)
X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1005614967 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:16386
Date: 2001-11-13T01:28:03+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Excellent. I'm calling a marker a 'cursor'. I've already decided I'm going
for the 'inbetween items' model (it's very neat). By having just one cursor
built in to each list object, I think I solve all the problems of
inefficiency, memory greed, and safety (in one fell stroke!). Getting my
proposal to you ASAP. Might multiple (simlutaneous) cursors be required
sometimes?

I'm a happy bunny now :-)

--
Best wishes,
Nick Roberts



"Jeffrey Carter" <jeffrey.carter@boeing.com> wrote in message
news:3BF00692.3CFED98C@boeing.com...
> Nick Roberts wrote:
> >
> > This would be analogous
> > to the way the cursor in most word processors deletes characters.
>
> Note that most word processors show the cursor between characters.
>
> > These operations would be efficient for a linked-list implementation,
but
> > not for a array-based one (for long lists). Again, that's okay (just not
> > ideal).
>
> The time complexity of operations is identical for bounded and unbounded
> lists. I suspect you have never seen a decent implementation of a
> bounded list.