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,f2690a5e963b61b6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.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: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:54:56 -0500
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <z--dnRI60_7j_lHfRVn-qw@megapath.net>
   <tyi72ga8ch55$.3tea03tbwrtx.dlg@40tude.net>
   <42cd064c$0$10817$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net>
   <k62rlp2n1ls3.1cnwufmnuit7v.dlg@40tude.net>
   <42cda8c4$0$22780$9b4e6d93@newsread2.arcor-online.net>
   <1u3hh2597i4ne$.1ryetugksbmus.dlg@40tude.net>
   <uslyp8mmb.fsf@earthlink.net>
   <1121093807.949660.274060@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <1121124248.600055.292320@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
   <1121137531.752285.44280@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <946e7$42d3c64d$4995421$28449@ALLTEL.NET>
   <1121179909.262566.192270@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
   <5a73f$42d40166$4995149$5993@ALLTEL.NET>
   <1121194262.036046.38230@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <1121195712.513120.70330@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <1121198441.766238.303580@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
   <pvqdnaQVAoNys0nfRVn-3g@megapath.net>
 <1121228160.445437.171480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: GCC 4.0 Ada.Containers Cursor danger.
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:58:03 -0500
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4952.2800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4952.2800
Message-ID: <NeGdnWl_R_tND0DfRVn-iA@megapath.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.32.209.38
X-Trace: 
 sv3-DxtwVzz8cic70ToBmm56IHuJvRxwb1BX+NHeQIlwS83sSxXuBU8NwtpD+IR3RTwJ93VVNh17GBTKqE/!ODYwnO1SW+RdETcGUx2Fb7k6w/UWTYH+3J6h9tn/LXflf2Vu5/HLwJ6Qf1CZx0kemhkP0IgHd3+8
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: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3683
Date: 2005-07-19T18:58:03-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"MMM" <terekhov@emc.com> wrote in message
news:1121228160.445437.171480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Randy Brukardt wrote:
> >
...
> > ordered" container. As a practical matter, a hashed container is much
harder
> > for the user to use than an ordered one. (An ordered one always will
work
> Use an ordered one then - list or vector.

Those are O(N) containers, and obviously aren't going to be acceptable as a
replacement for an O(1) hashed_map or O(log N) ordered_map.

Obviously, you care more about mathematics than time performance. One of the
things we learned from listening to the Ada community about containers is
that time performance is *very* important. We had to specify it, or the
containers couldn't be used portably. (If code that works on a O(log N)
implementation is moved to an O(N) one, it may simply be too slow to be able
to be used.) Programming is about a mix of mathematics and practical
concerns, and a standard library has to balance those.

                     Randy.