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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,TO_NO_BRKTS_FROM_MSSP 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: 2001-11-10 09:05:31 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!hub1.nntpserver.com!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!newsranger.com!www.newsranger.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: Ted Dennison References: <3BE29AF4.80804@telepath.com> <3BE29BD4.10401@telepath.com> <3BE2DB99.B707D409@boeing.com> <3BE32A18.18404AD1@boeing.com> <3BE443DE.574D669C@acm.org> <3BE58FDD.E1FB1815@san.rr.com> <3bec1cbe$0$15824$626a54ce@news.free.fr> <9sib27$13aeg3$5@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de> Subject: Re: List container strawman Message-ID: X-Abuse-Info: When contacting newsranger.com regarding abuse please X-Abuse-Info: forward the entire news article including headers or X-Abuse-Info: else we will not be able to process your request X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsranger.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 12:04:43 EST Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 17:04:43 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16224 Date: 2001-11-10T17:04:43+00:00 List-Id: In article <9sib27$13aeg3$5@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de>, Nick Roberts says... >For a start, all this mularchy about insertion and deletion is just plain >silly! It really is. You don't need them, and shouldn't implement them. Yes, >really. Let me show you why. I'm not sure I understand this. It looks like you are talking about having the users manage the internal details of all their own data structures, to which my first reaction would be "ewwwww.". I'll admit there may be some interesting possiblities I don't see in this though. >It also gives me another opportunity to demonstrate the idea of having a set >of abstract container types, upon which operations (such as Normalize_Names) >can be hung, thus freeing you of: (1) having to worry about which container >type to use when writing the procedure; (2) the procedure shackling you to >one particular container type. Do you turn away from this Utopia? ;-) But remember that one of our stipulations is essentially "no multilevel generic instantiations required". Does this work that way? Without that restriction you could do all sorts of cool things, as has been done in Booch and others. In that enviroment I'd say that we already have plenty of players, and one of them is liable to be perfectly suitable (although I suppose more are always welcome). I don't want to discourage you from making the ultimate container library. But for the purposes of what we are doing here it has to be very easy to use, and frankly I couldn't figure out quite what was going on in the code you presented. --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.