Re: worth the hassle?

["chris.danx" <spamoff.danx@ntlworld.com>]

"Stephen Leake" <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:uheirlk4z.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov...
> This was discussed extensively back in December 2001 during the Grace
> Lists requirements development. You could search on Google for that
> discussion.

side note: What's happening with Grace?

I checked Nick Roberts summary for ASCL/Grace and that was no use, I'll dig
into the archives of the discussion if I get time and see what the detailed
arguments were.

> My own opinion is that supporting limited types is a requirement for
> any general-purpose container.

I am in two minds.  One says forget limited just now and later on code a set
of limited equivalents later.  The code will be simple enough that copying
and modifying the non-limited packages should be no problem.  The other says
just use limted types, after all it's only one routine and it's not so
inconvienant.

Grrrr..... :(

Convienance says non-limited so maybe that's the way it will go.


Chris