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=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, FROM_STARTS_WITH_NUMS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.107.29.80 with SMTP id d77mr824166iod.27.1519381831803; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 02:30:31 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.157.68.105 with SMTP id f38mr49959otj.1.1519381831609; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 02:30:31 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!w142no711662ita.0!news-out.google.com!10ni899ite.0!nntp.google.com!w142no711659ita.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 02:30:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <503e3322-ee8e-4d6f-9aa5-e7b98f87e8f8@googlegroups.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=85.240.211.93; posting-account=rhqvKAoAAABpikMmPHJSZh4400BboHwT NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.240.211.93 References: <503e3322-ee8e-4d6f-9aa5-e7b98f87e8f8@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: article on acces types and dynamic serialization in Ada (2003) From: Mehdi Saada <00120260a@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 10:30:31 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Received-Body-CRC: 3975061324 X-Received-Bytes: 2773 Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:50594 Date: 2018-02-23T02:30:31-08:00 List-Id: > full serialization doesn't make sense (as a default) for any language, si= nce one has to deal with recursive data structures. Having P'Write go into an infinite loop is hardly sane! It goes without saying. That's why the paper (and Dmitry also) talked about= reference counting. It supposes a protocol and more informations than just= data and bounds, to associate such node with another, in which way. It could be I'm just too ignorant of data-structures, but besides (differen= t types of) nodes and (different types of) pointers to represent arrows/lin= ks, I don't see why a reference counting strategy wouldn't work for all. Th= at would use a (flat/binary, no json or whatever) uniform data-structures d= escription protocol protocol of data structures. The graph (1)(A,_1_,_3_)(2)(B,_1_,_3_)(3)(C,_2_,_3_) You would have to indicate how many such nodes are laid out, nodes or anyth= ing else, create as much (general) access values, and points the indicated = nodes (_1_ being the first written). A bit of (lame) ASCI art;=20 .<--| |->(1,A)-->(2,B) ^ | | `-' |----- -3->. =20 |<__]=20 > For the Node_Ptrs to be written as anything useful, you'd have to dump th= e entire list -- but that then would be duplicative. Go through, not dump... hence the use of lists. I'll try contacting the guy= , maybe he tried develop such a generic algorithm and failed. I'll learn so= mething at least.