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: 103376,7ee10ec601726fbf
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-01 11:58:29 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!chcgil2-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: why not
Date: 1 Nov 2001 13:58:20 -0600
Organization: Berbee Information Networks Corporation
Message-ID: <wxjM7LDNji1I@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <3BC5D730.DA950CC7@boeing.com> <9q4pa7$1ad$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <slrn9sdahp.k4.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de> <3BC6ACC8.23EF21BC@free.fr>
 <QQCx7.26073$ev2.34583@www.newsranger.com> <3BC71F54.1FFE78FA@boeing.com>
 <1KGx7.26476$ev2.35117@www.newsranger.com> <3BC7AD82.2A0CCCD4@acm.org>
 <usncjtzix.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov> <9qhiqr$af0$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <K1Zy7.12219$hT5.3979715684@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
 <1nDC7.180$6S7.92255364@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>
 <9rjsak$bp3$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <jbfstt097fvrrqmrl0kuscmbl57nOrganization: LJK
 Software
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1004644703 30755 192.135.80.34 (1 Nov 2001
 19:58:23 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 19:58:23 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15576
Date: 2001-11-01T13:58:20-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <9rrvvh$d16$1@nh.pace.co.uk>, "Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> writes:
> "Matthew Heaney" <mheaney@on2.com> wrote in message
> news:tu2t7oiig3e9d9@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> If you need to traverse backwards, you need a doubly-linked list.
>>
> Obviously. Just an observation that a singly linked list would save the
> overhead of extra pointers and many structures (stacks, single-ended-queues)
> might benefit from the lack of the extra pointer. However, in most
> instances, I'd think that the extra pointer overhead would be small enough
> that you might just as well have it there plus all the operations you
> *don't* need for a simple stack, just because then you've got a single
> package that does the whole job.

Extra cycles should only occur on modification, right ?

Someone who was worried about space of an extra link would probably
write their own anyway.