In article <9ssu29$150jnq$3@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de>, Nick Roberts says...
>I actually intended the 'horrible' choice of an array where the first list
>item is stored in the first element of the array, the second in the second,

That's what I was initially thinking too.

>Possibly we need a different nomenclature, e.g. Bounded_List for the classic
>implementation, and maybe Bounded_Vector for the na�ve? Or Packed_List?

Precisely. This gets back to the issue of how we want to approach the other
packages. Should there be a "Lists.Bounded" that has all the same attributes as
Unbounded, or should we instead redesign things a bit around what can be done
better with a bounded structure, which would be something like a circular queue
or a STL-style "vector"? If we were to do the latter, then we would probably not
want to stick with the bounded/unbounded nomenclature, because that implies a
certian consistency that isn't there.

---
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.