Re: List container strawman 1.2

["Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org>]

I think the original example omitted the "is <>" part. It makes a
difference.

Things should be made as simple as possible - but no simpler? :-)

My fear is that opening the door to more generic parameters to control
behavior and other options is going to get everyone lining up with their
favorite generic option. If at all possible, I'd prefer to keep the
instantiations simple and control options via some kind of initialization of
the list object.

But that's just my preference.....

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/


"Simon Wright" <simon@pushface.org> wrote in message
news:x7vpu6nxhp1.fsf@smaug.pushface.org...
>
> I have a user who definitely did want this (for example, what if the
> key were a case-insensitive string?)
>
>   with function "=" (L, R : Key) return Boolean is <>;
>
> It does mean that equality has to be visible at the point of
> instantiation, of course.