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,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,fce663eaf40b52f6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
Path: 
 controlnews3.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.cs.univ-paris8.fr!proxad.net!freenix!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail
From: "Marius Amado Alves" <amado.alves@netcabo.pt>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Manifesto against Vector
Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 19:24:32 +0100
Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or
Message-ID: <mailman.68.1083695056.313.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
References: <mailman.63.1083641204.313.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
	<feQlc.6993$V97.2116@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1083695057 21796 212.85.156.195 (4 May 2004
 18:24:17 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 18:24:17 +0000 (UTC)
To: <comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
Return-Path: <amado.alves@netcabo.pt>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 May 2004 18:24:08.0920 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[FD99F580:01C43204]
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p7 (Debian) at ada-france.org
X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup"
	<comp.lang.ada.ada-france.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.ada-france.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada>,
	<mailto:comp.lang.ada-request@ada-france.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
List-Help: <mailto:comp.lang.ada-request@ada-france.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.ada-france.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada>,
	<mailto:comp.lang.ada-request@ada-france.org?subject=subscribe>
Xref: controlnews3.google.com comp.lang.ada:248
Date: 2004-05-04T19:24:32+01:00

> While I agree that Vector is not the best name for this abstraction, I
> have expressed my opinion and the reasons behind it to the ARG during
> earlier discussions of AI-302-03, and the ARG chose Vector. The
> discussion is over.

It's not over. It was tacitly postponed. I remember that discussion, and
I've just reviewed it. The main argument for "vectors" is that it is widely
used. Well, this argument is simply false. I my 20+ years of programming
languages "array" is clearly the term mostly used. "Vector" is just an
STLism and Java fad. There is additional experience exposed in the
discussion. Incidently, Kopolovich participated, and his arguments are
mostly right. As with all naming issues this one was tacitly postponed then
in favour of design issues. But now the design is done with, and it's time
to perfect naming. A similar thing happened with the indefinite elements
issue. It was once tacitly postponed, with the apparent tendency of *not* to
have them. But then when the more pressing issues cleared, the issue was
brought back, and the position inverted: we now have containers of
indefinite elements in the standard. Compared to this, changing "vectors" to
"arrays" will be a breeze. That said...

> I can live with it.

Me too.