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,fed2e7871ca258cd X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-15 20:46:23 PST Path: archiver1.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: <87heqs5awc.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> Subject: Re: List Container Strawman 1.4 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, 15 Dec 2001 23:46:00 EST Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 04:46:00 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17962 Date: 2001-12-16T04:46:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <87heqs5awc.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>, Florian Weimer says... > > type Element_Array is array (Natural range <>) of Element; > > function To (Source : Element_Array) return List; > function From (Source : List) return Element_Array; > >What about a generic version of To and From which can handle arrays >with different index types? I think the proper way to give that level of flexability would be to make the array itself a generic parameter to the package. In my opinion, that's just one bridge too far. > generic > with procedure Operation (Target : in out Element; Quit : out Boolean); > procedure Passive_Iterator (Target : in out List); > > >I'd like to suggest to make Quit mode "in out", with a default of >False. Arrg! That had already been agreed to. I just forgot to put it in. Good catch. >I think the Reverse_Order predicate should be named differently, so >that it's clear from its name that it's a predicate. "Reverse_Order" >could also mean "Reverse the order of the elments.", not just "Are >these elements in reversed order?". That's a good point. The only other thing I can think of at the moment though is "Out_Of_Order", which has other unfortunate connotations. :-) --- 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.