Re: Usage of Interfaces with Ada 95

[Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>]

Matthew Heaney <matthewjheaney@earthlink.net> writes:

> Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> writes:
> 
> > And so do Booch Component iterators, which are abstract, and which of
> > course are much more like what all English-speaking programmers bar
> > those who also speak STL understand by Iterator than the STL ones
> > which Charles has adopted. I just have to get that dig in. And there
> > are some on the ARG who have similar views. We shall have to see how
> > it goes! Personally I have no problem at all with what the STL does,
> > just some of the names it's adopted for the concepts ..
> 
> I don't know why you'd think this.  I didn't make this up.  Read the
> chapter titled Iterator in the design patterns book by Gamma et al.  The
> English-speaking world (and the German-speaking world too, apparently)
> has settled on the terms "container" and "iterator."  And "factory
> method."  And "visitor."  And whatever.  So stop fighting it and read
> Gamma!

You know that I am perfectly well aware of what Iterators are for.

I have just checked the GoF and Grady's book, and both of them are a
lot closer (IMO) to what the BCs mean by Iterator than what the STL
does.

The STL means something quite like "designator of one end of a
half-open range".

I am not a C++ speaker, but

  for (i = cont.start(); i != cont.oneAfterTheEnd(); i++)

is *not* the way the GoF, or Grady, describe it.