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: 103376,93ab7fc5388e249
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-09 06:04:56 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!wn1feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc53.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Mark Lundquist" <mlundquist2@attbi.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <DzdP7.48986$xS6.81471@www.newsranger.com>
 <hRdP7.49017$xS6.81420@www.newsranger.com> <3C0E1FA1.45A38A75@brighton.ac.uk>
 <%7sP7.49836$xS6.82296@www.newsranger.com> <aewP7.2149$dp6.152302@rwcrnsc54>
 <DpxP7.50285$xS6.83694@www.newsranger.com> <3C0FAF0C.A46BB265@san.rr.com>
 <xI5Q7.52864$xS6.87167@www.newsranger.com> <3C10F9CC.175B3159@san.rr.com>
Subject: Re: List container strawman 1.3
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Message-ID: <ccKQ7.23843$Yy.297816@rwcrnsc53>
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001 14:04:56 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.127.202.212
X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com
X-Trace: rwcrnsc53 1007906696 204.127.202.212 (Sun, 09 Dec 2001 14:04:56 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001 14:04:56 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17641
Date: 2001-12-09T14:04:56+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"Darren New" <dnew@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3C10F9CC.175B3159@san.rr.com...
> Ted Dennison wrote:
> > Suppose a new node got added right after the deletion? In that case its
quite
> > possible that your iterator is now unintentionally pointing to the new
node
> > instead of the old deleted one.
>
> True, I'd forgotten about that. There's ways around that too, but
> they're higher overhead. Or you could do something with storage pools to
> prevent it, perhaps. Doing the invalidation at the time of the operation
> is probably a good idea, given that 'iterators' would need to be
> controlled (if not limited) anyway, eliminating the need to check on
> iterators you don't know about when you make the changes to the list.

Plus, it seems dubious to optimize deletion in favor of access!
-- mark