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,LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a3bf872bb81a1f2b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-11 09:43:21 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.r-kom.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!ppp-1-70.cvx5.telinco.NET!not-for-mail From: "Nick Roberts" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ASCL a doomed idea? Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 17:43:09 -0000 Message-ID: <9v5gjn$d9cth$2@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de> References: <7RQP7.4406$Yy.272014@rwcrnsc53> <9v0crv$bo2bi$2@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de> <3C13D980.748CCCDA@acm.org> <9v37s0$cdmva$3@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-1-70.cvx5.telinco.net (212.1.152.70) X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1008092600 13939633 212.1.152.70 (16 [25716]) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17776 Date: 2001-12-11T17:43:09+00:00 List-Id: "Ted Dennison" wrote in message news:wmpR7.57437$xS6.92885@www.newsranger.com... > In article , Mark Lundquist says... > > > >I think you are the one who must be from another planet, Nick! That's it... > >you're an acid-dropping dope fiend from the planet Contar! That would also > >explain why you need the "wide open spaces"... the wide open *interstellar* > >spaces, am I right, eh? How many more of you are there among us, that's > >what I want to know! > > Nick, I take back everything bad I ever said about you. We are nice friendly > folk down here on Earth, really. Please tell your masters back on Contar to find > their leibenstraum on some other planet..unless they like it really cold with no > ozone layer. In that case, they can have Antartica if they'll just promise not > to slaughter the rest of us. [Made me laugh loudly. Excellent.] ... Message coming in {sound of Morse code} ... WE ARE THE CONTARI YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED RESISTANCE IS FUTILE ... the skies are getting dark ... What I really love is the fact that, despite the Borg having successfully conquered half the galaxy, any Borg drone can be disabled by simply pulling some plug out of the back of its neck! Shame. Daleks? Just run up a flight of steps. ... Oh no! Not content just to conquor Earth, the evil Contari have brought along their dreaded allies the TALIBANI {duh duh DUH} ... ... But wait! Who is this coming to rescue? Is it the saviour of mankind? Yes! It's ... Colin Powell Man! See him fly! And here come his friends, the mighty Delta Forces ;-) ... Don't miss next week's exciting episode {music} ... Well, I hope my little moment of petulance is forgiven. Never one to give up (when any sensible person would ;-) I'm going to give it one more shot. Do have a little scream, if it might make you feel any better. I believe that the majority of Ada programmers would prefer that the names of the subprograms and types for containers favoured practicality over terminological exactitude. And it seems to me that re-using names and concepts from Ada.Strings.* (and other existing standard Ada library units) would be welcomed by most Ada programmers as having consistency and mnemonic value, even if they don't actually correspond to the 'classic' list operations and terminology from the textbooks. That is my argument as regards names; take it or leave it. Again, on the theme of practicality, I don't care whether they're called iterators, enumerators, cultivators, dooki, or unidirectifiscanators, but I believe my scheme has the following benefits: (1) My iterators are container-wide. This means that an algorithm (a subprogam) can be based on iterators, and then any kinds of containers (list, set, contar, file, array) can be used in conjunction with it. Thus my iterators form a key link between algorithms and data (containers), just as Mark was talking about. (2) My iterators distinguish between data streams: which do not terminate; which do terminate; which can be restarted. This allows algorithms that require termination or restarting to demand these qualities (usually) statically, but it allows terminating and restarting data streams to be used without any difficulty with algorithms that do not require these qualities. (3) My iterators provide 'write' forms as well as 'read' forms. This may not conform to classic doctrine, but it is nevertheless useful: it means that algorithms can write data into containers, as well as reading data from them, without having to be container-specific. Writing into containers such as lists, sets, and contars works just like inserting (or appending); writing into a file or pipe needs no explanation (surely!). My theme, as I hope is obvious by now, is practicality, practicality, practicality. Is that snoring I can hear at the back there? All right then, this is Mork signing off for another episode. Nanu Nanu. -- Greetings to all Earthlings Peace and Goodwill unto you all Klaatu Beringa Nicto Nick Roberts (aka 'Kraatis') PS: I hope my attempt at humour is not considered in poor taste. It is meant in the lightest of ways.