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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,229ea0001655d6a2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-in.ntli.net!newsrout1-win.ntli.net!ntli.net!news.highwinds-media.com!xara.net!gxn.net!194.159.246.34.MISMATCH!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon.j.wright@mac.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Generic Package
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 20:44:13 +0100
Organization: Pushface
Message-ID: <m2r6q5d2lu.fsf@mac.com>
References: <1177539306.952515.222940@s33g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
 <1177601484.444701.171560@r35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
 <pcp92sp50q98$.lad523qlftgm.dlg@40tude.net> <m2zm4udcqt.fsf@mac.com>
 <degsdvcu9wwi$.1j7dffe23bgq5$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1177672290.8055.6.camel@localhost>
 <ozslghlwuydt$.1t30ht6ytimwi$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1177703053 23328 62.49.19.209 (27 Apr 2007 19:44:13
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:44:13 +0000 (UTC)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:w1dmmuVV7AyU6LablTWwu9xEmLA=
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.95 (darwin)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15364
Date: 2007-04-27T20:44:13+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:11:30 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

>> Any real table in an existing computer has a "natural"
>> ordering suitable for iterating an operation for all
>> elements: data in a real computer can be uniquely identified.
>
> No this is wrong even on a real computer. The DB engine could
> shuffle the rows asynchronously to your application. There could be
> other applications playing with the table. The table might spread
> over memories of several computers and different levels cashes. You
> have to bring transactions, replications and other synchronizing
> stuff to make any sense out of "natural order."

Just using ordered containers is hardly going to stop you needing to
deal with locking!

The BCs let you iterate over hashed containers. They're not
thread-safe, but provided you lock properly you will visit all the
elements once.

I'm sure the same applies to Ada.Containers.