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=1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT,TO_NO_BRKTS_FROM_MSSP autolearn=no
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a644fa9cd1a3869a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-14 07:03:59 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!newsranger.com!www.newsranger.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
From: Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com>
References: <3BECA3B7.5020702@telepath.com> <9sjf4n$odm$1@news.huji.ac.il>
 <GSWgHtJTqIbl@eisner.encompasserve.org>
 <9sjkc7$145mhb$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de> <3BEDACC0.9A314B54@acm.org>
 <9sktgm$134npc$3@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de> <3BEEB766.B50C969@acm.org>
 <9sn4qk$13g29j$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de> <3BEFF9D6.607480D@boeing.com>
 <dFTH7.21871$xS6.33592@www.newsranger.com> <3BF08501.50C83D22@acm.org>
 <l%9I7.22965$xS6.35437@www.newsranger.com>
 <9ssu29$150jnq$3@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de>
Subject: Re: List container: Insert and Delete
Message-ID: <uJvI7.24333$xS6.38388@www.newsranger.com>
X-Abuse-Info: When contacting newsranger.com regarding abuse please
X-Abuse-Info: forward the entire news article including headers or
X-Abuse-Info: else we will not be able to process your request
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsranger.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:03:54 EST
Organization: http://www.newsranger.com
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:03:54 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16504
Date: 2001-11-14T15:03:54+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.