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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a644fa9cd1a3869a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-13 11:18:34 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!skates!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: List container strawman 1.2 Date: 13 Nov 2001 14:12:03 -0500 Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.gsfc.nasa.gov Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: skates.gsfc.nasa.gov 1005678880 2293 128.183.220.71 (13 Nov 2001 19:14:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: dscoggin@cne-odin.gsfc.nasa.gov NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Nov 2001 19:14:40 GMT User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16434 Date: 2001-11-13T19:14:40+00:00 List-Id: "Steven Deller" writes: > Also, these lists are NOT sorted, so non-duplication would require > searching the entire list for each insertion. As I said in previous > email, it is not good to have O(N) performance for primitive operations > on primitive structures. > > Non-duplication insertion is better left to implementations intended for > sorted lists. In which case, I'd expect "insert based on key" to be one > of the primitive operations. And the user would NOT have the ability to > specify where in a list an insertion was going to be done. Agreed. I should have mentioned in my other post: SAL only supports "ignore, error, allow" for duplicates in sorted binary trees, not in lists. -- -- Stephe