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,ac39a12d5faf5b14
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-21 22:29:03 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!pogner.demon.co.uk!zap!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Grace and Maps (was Re: Development process in the Ada community)
Date: 22 Apr 2002 06:20:10 +0100
Organization: Pushface
Message-ID: <x7vr8l871it.fsf@smaug.pushface.org>
References: <3CB46975.90408@snafu.de> <3CBAFFEE.2080708@snafu.de>
 <4519e058.0204171036.6f0a7394@posting.google.com> <3CBDD795.4060706@snafu.de>
 <4519e058.0204180800.44fac012@posting.google.com> <3CBF0341.8020406@mail.com>
 <a9n0tk$6fs$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <4519e058.0204190529.559a47ae@posting.google.com>
 <a9p98h$8hn$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3CC1C6B3.6060306@telepath.com>
 <3CC21747.5000501@telepath.com> <V+UgdHreGTJg@eisner.encompasserve.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1019453336 nnrp-14:26657 NO-IDENT
 pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Apr 2002 05:20:10 GMT
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22883
Date: 2002-04-22T05:20:10+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:

> While the interface should not _prevent_ implementations from
> achieving certain performance goals, I don't think performance goals
> should be part of the requirements.  If a vendor wants to provide a
> relatively slow implementation, that is their choice, just like
> their choice regarding how fast A := B'length should perform.

As a user as well as a provider, it seems to me that I need both
bounded and unbounded memory behaviour in the same program (for
different instances, of course!); and I'd like to be able to change
without huge costs.