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-Thread: 103376,f5142427a147e149
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.megapath.net!news.megapath.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:43:35 -0600
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <45b60602$0$24602$39db0f71@news.song.fi>
   <1169567122.501077.189450@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>
   <45b69499$0$31527$39db0f71@news.song.fi>
   <z4ednRU4OZTJNivYnZ2dnUVZ_uOmnZ2d@megapath.net>
   <1169672163.617949.214430@13g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
 <1169679410.534272.110960@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Equivalent keys/elements in Ada.Containers Maps and Sets
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:44:59 -0600
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807
Message-ID: <LLKdnTjjY6KqYCrYnZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@megapath.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.32.209.38
X-Trace: 
 sv3-YOiTQWl15XScvwMHupEwuq3nRDdgsLLQI3GlDNQk+r7DdW51erBLznUOXKF8QCRWfzgWc8GCkNjoRFU!nBaU/uoz+MW325Y6eVm679+93ramJzWbxSHmlrwDwRFhDjsBshaC9ydTTUpERcQwsGksoNyJJ28t!94/9HV97eYrN9w==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8525
Date: 2007-01-24T18:44:59-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Matthew Heaney" <mheaney@on2.com> wrote in message
news:1169679410.534272.110960@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 24, 3:56 pm, "Adam Beneschan" <a...@irvine.com> wrote:
> >
> > As far as I can tell from the wording of the RM (A.18.9(79/2)), the
> > function "<" that Niklas wrote does indeed meet the requirements...
>
> Even if that's true, the container doesn't work with that function!
> What would be the point of defining a function that satisfies RM
> requirements but doesn't satisfy the requirement for program
> correctness???

To show that the RM is wrong. That's all Niklas was asking anyway -- he
wasn't asking what the container *should* be, but rather whether the RM
accurately reflected the intent. It doesn't help to answer some other
question that wasn't even asked....

                         Randy.