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,fdc75443ea18fb32 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-30 12:19:27 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!news1.sttln1.wa.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Mark Lundquist" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <%QRM7.39743$xS6.65958@www.newsranger.com> <9u0qhb$pq5$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9u0ujd$rhg$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3C05E289.C254DA29@mida.se> <3C065B15.5CA7D10B@boeing.com> Subject: Re: Standard Queue status 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: Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 20:19:27 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.248.56.237 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.sttln1.wa.home.com 1007151567 24.248.56.237 (Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:19:27 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:19:27 PST Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17241 Date: 2001-11-30T20:19:27+00:00 List-Id: "Jeffrey Carter" wrote in message news:3C065B15.5CA7D10B@boeing.com... > Mats Karlssohn wrote: > > > > Yes, the use of "Direction" is elegant, and converting to and from > > unbounded arrays seems useful. > > I don't know. Specifying the direction seems like control coupling. I don't think it really is control coupling. The semantics of Direction are defined independently from any implementation issues. Direction is a legitimate part of the abstraction in this case (I'm not saying I think it's necessarily the best design). The litmus test is, "What dependencies does it set up that you don't like?" If it doesn't create any dependencies, then it's not coupling. Another way to look at it: if the approach gives you no more and no less than having two variants (forward and reverse) for each operation, then how is one approach any more "control coupled" than the other? -- mark