Re: Standard Queue status

[Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com>]

In article <3C05E289.C254DA29@mida.se>, Mats Karlssohn says...
>
>Ted Dennison wrote:
>%<
>> Personally, I like his use of the "Direction" type to specify which end to 

>Yes, the use of "Direction" is elegant, and converting to and from
>unbounded arrays seems useful.

I think it may also be the way to resolve some of our naming issues, although
that could just be wishful thinking on my part. :-)

>> Also I think there are too many operations in there. The package spec is 
>I almost started in this direction the other day...
>Even 34 subprogram seems a bit bulky to me, would it be possible to
>subdivide the package further (of course it would, but would it be
>useful)? Would doing so nessecarily (spl ?) make instansiation that
>much more complicated ?

Any time you make a child package of a generic, it has to be generic as well. It
also must be instantiated from the parent package's *instantiation*, not from
the parent generic unit. This is fairly confusing to most people when they first
run into it. It certianly was for me anyway. Remember that students are one of
the intended user bases of this facility. So I'd say that this is definitely
something we'd like to aviod, if possible.

As for the strawman's current size, I think it is definitely getting up near the
point where I like to split my own packages apart, but it isn't quite there yet.
That's part of the reason I've been fighting fairly hard against adding lots of
stuff that isn't a common need for a general list, or that can be just as
efficiently done by the user using the routines already provided as a base.

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. 
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.