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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,cda33fc7f63c2885 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-01-08 11:57:03 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!isdnet!enst!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Steven Deller" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: RE: list strawman Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 14:54:05 -0500 Organization: ENST, France Sender: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org Message-ID: Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 1010519822 80284 137.194.161.2 (8 Jan 2002 19:57:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 19:57:02 +0000 (UTC) To: Return-Path: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <7iE_7.8661$cD4.15714@www.newsranger.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail<->news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18662 Date: 2002-01-08T14:54:05-05:00 > -----Original Message----- > From: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org > [mailto:comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org] On Behalf Of Ted Dennison > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 10:32 AM > To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org > Subject: Re: RE: list strawman > > Since we have a "Splice", I can't really sit here and argue > that its inverse function has no business being there. But > I'd like to hear a few concurrances that it needs to be in > there before changing things. Ted, Actually, a "split" is not necessary if there is a way to compare two iterators to see if they are pointing to the same item -- in that case, the left and right partitions can simply be the list portions before, and after a given iterator. Of course that means the algorithm will need O(lnN) iterators, which is another difficulty in the current interface. I'm not sure why there needs to be a limit on the number of iterators. For any operation that has to check consistency across all iterators, just traverse a "list" of the iterators (such a list being a locally defined and used list). >>From my "usability" view, the interface now has 3 flaws: 1. No "split" list into two lists 2. No "compare iterators" (at least not that I recall) 3. Limited number of iterators Regards, Steve