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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ac39a12d5faf5b14
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-21 17:36:32 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!xmission!news-out.spamkiller.net!propagator2-maxim!propagator-maxim!news-in.spamkiller.net!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!news-in-sanjose!newsfeed.onecall.net!chcgil2-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Grace and Maps (was Re: Development process in the Ada community)
Date: 21 Apr 2002 19:36:11 -0500
Organization: LJK Software
Message-ID: <V+UgdHreGTJg@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <3CB46975.90408@snafu.de> <3CBAFFEE.2080708@snafu.de>
 <4519e058.0204171036.6f0a7394@posting.google.com> <3CBDD795.4060706@snafu.de>
 <4519e058.0204180800.44fac012@posting.google.com> <3CBF0341.8020406@mail.com>
 <a9n0tk$6fs$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <4519e058.0204190529.559a47ae@posting.google.com>
 <a9p98h$8hn$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3CC1C6B3.6060306@telepath.com>
 <3CC21747.5000501@telepath.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1019435776 25529 192.135.80.34 (22 Apr 2002
 00:36:16 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 00:36:16 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22877
Date: 2002-04-21T19:36:11-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <3CC21747.5000501@telepath.com>, Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> writes:

> On second thought, we really ought to get some kind of consensus on 
> requirements before rushing headlong into design. If nothing else, it 
> will save a lot of arguments.
> 
> Requirements I think ought to be included (using the usual should/shall 
> language):
> 
> Maps shall provide for key lookup in no worse than O(logn) average time 
> and O(n) worst case (where n is the # of elements in the map).
> 
> Maps shall provide for creation of a sorted list or array, or traversal 
> in sorted order, in no worse than O(n) time. (In other words, the map is 
> kept sorted as elements are added).
> 
> Maps should provide an interface consistent with Lists, as far as is 
> practicable.
> 
> Comments?

While the interface should not _prevent_ implementations from
achieving certain performance goals, I don't think performance
goals should be part of the requirements.  If a vendor wants to
provide a relatively slow implementation, that is their choice,
just like their choice regarding how fast A := B'length should
perform.