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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Queue implementation in Ada
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 19:25:20 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <lyvbn4vvxb.fsf@pushface.org>
References: <8456b674-a10d-411f-bcf6-90d9638b7fc9@googlegroups.com>
	<m2n2jl$d70$1@dont-email.me> <lyk33k7btz.fsf@pushface.org>
	<m2ona2$tv6$2@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="e614caa3bbcdcdac946afd88f128a08d";
	logging-data="10929"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+PrarrIopRWIHrRSyP9RSBPtb1q6frop8="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+4kIaUnBHL0cAwmEO/bvtRrHU5c=
	sha1:4m1hhr5xGOOA8H4n5Qp1wG5dexE=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:22865
Date: 2014-10-28T19:25:20+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Jeffrey Carter <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org> writes:

> On 10/28/2014 03:00 AM, Simon Wright wrote:
>> Jeffrey Carter <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org> writes:
>> 
>>> If you want unsynchronized queues, you could build your own, possibly
>>> using Ada.Containers.Doubly_Linked_Lists (ARM A.18.3).
>> 
>> I used Vectors, ARM A.18.2. Not sure why one would choose one over the
>> other?
>
> In the sense that both are random-access sequences, with essentially
> the same interface, there is none. One could build either as a wrapper
> around the other.
>
> Clearly any difference must be in the implementation. Given that one
> is named Doubly_Linked_Lists and the other adds index-based access,
> it's reasonable to think that the former is expected to be implemented
> as a linked list and the latter as an array. Since a queue experiences
> frequent additions to the tail and frequent deletions from the head,
> the linked list seems appropriate.

Good point.

I've been put off Doubly_Linked_Lists because I would usually have been
quite happy with singly linked lists. But really, what difference does
it make if all you're doing is implementing a Queue!