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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,70414f56d810c10c X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Received: by 10.68.13.102 with SMTP id g6mr61592pbc.1.1316549972377; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 13:19:32 -0700 (PDT) Path: lh7ni1333pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!w28g2000yqw.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Maciej Sobczak Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: discriminant questions Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 13:19:32 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <9f37b726-d80b-4d24-bf3f-28a14255f7fd@s20g2000yql.googlegroups.com> <86015926-d652-4265-aedd-413312d399f9@dq7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <0d272f62-67d0-4905-972c-8a7e912c5531@en1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <148cxoyabima2.16mz6xwdph2hj.dlg@40tude.net> <01a1374f-59ab-40be-9e39-0640cb2a513d@n35g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> <1fp2o673mu9az$.d9loz1zbcl0d.dlg@40tude.net> <14tiipigyejtc$.hyp7e82egqwq$.dlg@40tude.net> <34d856bd-19a3-4bbf-b9d8-c0f100000ef4@k7g2000vbd.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.3.40.82 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1316549972 3127 127.0.0.1 (20 Sep 2011 20:19:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 20:19:32 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: w28g2000yqw.googlegroups.com; posting-host=83.3.40.82; posting-account=bMuEOQoAAACUUr_ghL3RBIi5neBZ5w_S User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-Google-Web-Client: true X-Google-Header-Order: HUALESNKRC X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13,gzip(gfe) Xref: news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18055 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2011-09-20T13:19:32-07:00 List-Id: On Sep 20, 6:48=A0pm, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote: > >> Linked list is not a container, > > > We might be using different definitions, then. > > "an object used for or capable of holding, esp for transport or storage, > such as a carton, box, etc." OK, so on the computer programming discussion group you are using a generic definition from The Free Dictionary, which contains the following disclaimer at the bottom of the page: "This information should not be considered complete, up to date, and is not intended to be used in place of a visit, consultation, or advice of a legal, medical, or any other professional." I have used the definition that is more in line of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_%28data_structure%29 "In computer science, a container is a class, a data structure, or an abstract data type (ADT) whose instances are collections of other objects. In other words; they are used for storing objects in an organized way following specific access rules." By "specific access rules" I understand that these rules can distinguish some containers from the others. Like, for example, a container that provides fast insertion in the middle, but not necessarily fast relative jumps. Like a list container, for example. Interestingly (from the same page), "Containers are sometimes implemented in conjunction with iterators." > Linked list is a data structure which may serve as an implementation of a > container. That depends on your definition. According to mine (cited above) linked list is a container. > > We have to take into account the physicality of computations, unless > > some completely different model is invented (and delivered). > > Yes, that is why forcing referential semantics is bad. Nobody is forcing referential semantics, although it might be the most natural and efficient solution for iterators. And you still haven't shown that it is bad. > Assuming that pointers are > bad, so are the iterators. Yes, that sounds logical. But according to the laws of logic and the above statement, we still don't know whether iterators are bad unless we are up-front biased. -- Maciej Sobczak * http://www.msobczak.com * http://www.inspirel.com