Manifesto against Vector

["Alexander E. Kopilovich" <aek@VB1162.spb.edu>]

As it follows from the Minutes of #22 ARG Meeting 
(http://www.ada.auth.org/ai-files/minutes/min-0403.html#AI302),
ARG chose the name Vector for Unbounded_Array container.
Here is a quotation from the minutes:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

What should the names of the packages be?
  Pascal does not like Vector, because of confusion with AI-296
  type Vector. Tucker points out that both C++ and Java use
  Vector for this. Pascal would like Sequence. But both Vector
  and List are Sequences. Vector is chosen.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think (and in fact I'm pretty sure) that this apparently tiny decision
will either produce very unpleasant results for the whole AI-302 Container
library (for example, by provoking competing mutations) or even negatively
(although perhaps not heavily) influence attitude to Ada in general.
(It is a well-known way to political defeat - trying to appease your opponents
at the "little" expense of your supporters).

The most essential argument against the name Vector for Unbounded_Array in
Ada is that true vectors in Ada usually should be represented by ordinary
arrays and not by any container from Container library (unlike C++ and Java,
where true vectors often enough should be represented using correspondily
named templates/classes/objects).

This is quite obvious that the most natural name for this container in Ada
is Unbounded_Array, because this name perfectly associates with both "array"
and Unbounded_String, for which it is natural generalization.

There is very little doubt that if there weren't C++ and Java with their
Vector then Unbounded_Array would emerge naturally and would be accepted
without much discussion.

So the problem seems to be a temptation to make a concession to C++ and Java
communities (as well as to their managers) in rather unfounded hope that this
can somehow decrease alienation.

As for the name Sequence (mentioned in the Minutes) - it might be acceptable,
but it seems it is better to use it for an interface name (that interface may
be useful for data structures more complex that Unbounded_Arrays or Lists).

Finally: why I'm sending this manifesto here, in comp.lang.ada newsgroup,
and not in Ada-Comment mailing list? Just because now I doubt that ARG is able
to focus on this matter. The ARG, at least active members of ARG, who attend
ARG meetings and take decisions, seems to be overloaded with many other, often
difficult and/or time-consuming problems, so they will not waste their time and
attention for this apparently little nuisance any more.





Alexander Kopilovich                      aek@vib.usr.pu.ru
Saint-Petersburg
Russia