* ASCL a doomed idea? @ 2001-12-06 20:26 Michael Erdmann 2001-12-06 20:49 ` Mark Lundquist 0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread From: Michael Erdmann @ 2001-12-06 20:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada Hallo, as i can remeber the idea of ASCL is at least 2 years old. I have done some thing like this already some time a go, maybe you like to refere to: http://ascl.sourceforge.net/ IThe whole thing is more or less doomed because every body likes the idea to have support components for his application development, but you are still discussing about basic low level things like containers etc. In order to make this project more interesting for every body, please focus on higher level components like configiration manager packages, transaction management etc. It would make application development easier if there would be a documented common frame work for applications available (e.g. the frame work covers config. files, tracing etc.)! But as long i can remeber this there is a dicussion about basic containers going on which is find quite useless and which does not help to reach the project objective. Anyhow i will change the name of my project on sourceforge in order to avoid any interference if you like! Regards Michael ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-06 20:26 ASCL a doomed idea? Michael Erdmann @ 2001-12-06 20:49 ` Mark Lundquist 2001-12-09 19:07 ` Nick Roberts 0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread From: Mark Lundquist @ 2001-12-06 20:49 UTC (permalink / raw) "Michael Erdmann" <michael.erdmann@snafu.de> wrote in message news:mailman.1007670662.18290.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org... > > But as long i can remeber this there is a dicussion about > basic containers going on which is find quite useless and > which does not help to reach the project objective. The objective of which project, would that be? :-) If yours, then it should not be suprising if some other project does not help to advance your objective :-) Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with your project/objective. -- mark ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-06 20:49 ` Mark Lundquist @ 2001-12-09 19:07 ` Nick Roberts 2001-12-09 21:37 ` Jeffrey Carter 0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread From: Nick Roberts @ 2001-12-09 19:07 UTC (permalink / raw) "Mark Lundquist" <mlundquist2@attbi.com> wrote in message news:7RQP7.4406$Yy.272014@rwcrnsc53... > > "Michael Erdmann" <michael.erdmann@snafu.de> wrote in message > news:mailman.1007670662.18290.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org... > > > > But as long i can remeber this there is a dicussion about > > basic containers going on which is find quite useless and > > which does not help to reach the project objective. > > The objective of which project, would that be? :-) > > If yours, then it should not be suprising if some other project does not > help to advance your objective :-) > > Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with your project/objective. I see that Michael has been busy in (at least) the areas of Ada database interfacing and a project called ACDE, which is about providing components for building distributed software. Respect. I see also references to 'ASCL', but I'm not sure whether this is an old name for ACDE or not, or whether it is currently extant. Regardless of this, I have thought of a possible alternative name for the STL-like containers project (effectively) started by TED: "Tenet", from the Latin "it holds". I think this has the requisite short-and-pithy-ness, and I don't think it's been used in an Ada context before. It does contain the word "net", however, so maybe it's not ideal. Does this name tickle anyone's ticklish bits, at all? I've been looking carefully at my proposal (NJR 5), Jeffrey Carter's (JC01) and TED's (1.3), and -- to put it totally bluntly -- I still think mine is the best so far (I just can't help being perfect ;-) for some fairly specific reasons: (1) all my nomenclature is derived directly from Ada.Strings.* wherever possible, the exceptions being 'cursor', 'cursorage', 'facing', 'prepend', 'split', 'move_cursor', and 'restart' (about which nobody seems to have argued anyway), and the generic parameter Element_Type, and the function End_of_*, both of which I have derived from Ada.*_IO; (2) there are certainly a lot of operations, but (and I have them reviewed carefully) I believe every single one is justified (including the array ones), either for reasons of implementational efficiency, or significant user convenience, or both; (3) the closed (passive?) iterator included in both JC01 and TED 1.3 is inferior to the open, container-wide iterator (I have already outlined, haven't I?) to be added to my proposal, in that it does not permit restarting within the client procedure, and it does not permit writing at all. Having reviewed my design, I have decided not to axe any of the operations, but to axe two of the parameters: Facing and Offset (except in Move_Cursor). The complete functionality of the Facing parameter can be reproduced by implementing a 'smart reverse' operation (so that's two further subprograms to be added!) with the appropriate semantics. I feel the Offset parameter (of the cursor-based operations) was overkill, given that you can always move the cursor to the required position, and then move it back again. Yet another procedure that needs to be added is a Copy_Cursor. I have rejected the idea of a separate cursor type (as pointless). I'm afraid I must say I've been a bit unimpressed about the recent arguments about the names of the ends of lists. I feel just like Gulliver witnessing, with incredulity, the arguments between the Lilliputians and the Blefuscuans about which end of the egg to eat first. Get it together guys, or I'm afraid Michael's prediction will come true, and I will indeed simply go off and do it on my own. -- Sternly, Nick Roberts ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-09 19:07 ` Nick Roberts @ 2001-12-09 21:37 ` Jeffrey Carter 2001-12-10 19:36 ` Nick Roberts 2001-12-11 14:45 ` Mark Lundquist 0 siblings, 2 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey Carter @ 2001-12-09 21:37 UTC (permalink / raw) Nick Roberts wrote: > > I've been looking carefully at my proposal (NJR 5), Jeffrey Carter's (JC01) > and TED's (1.3), and -- to put it totally bluntly -- I still think mine is > the best so far (I just can't help being perfect ;-) for some fairly > specific reasons: > > (1) all my nomenclature is derived directly from Ada.Strings.* wherever > possible, the exceptions being 'cursor', 'cursorage', 'facing', 'prepend', > 'split', 'move_cursor', and 'restart' (about which nobody seems to have > argued anyway), and the generic parameter Element_Type, and the function > End_of_*, both of which I have derived from Ada.*_IO; This is a significant problem with NJR5. Lists are not strings and use different nomenclature. > (3) the closed (passive?) iterator included in both JC01 and TED 1.3 is > inferior to the open, container-wide iterator (I have already outlined, > haven't I?) to be added to my proposal, in that it does not permit > restarting within the client procedure, and it does not permit writing at > all. An iterator procedure is the only thing that is an iterator; anything else called an iterator is misnamed. I don't know what you mean by "writing" in this context. The iterator in JC01 allows updating the value stored at the current position being acted upon. Insertion and deletion should take place outside an iterator. -- Jeff Carter "Hello! Smelly English K...niggets." Monty Python & the Holy Grail ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-09 21:37 ` Jeffrey Carter @ 2001-12-10 19:36 ` Nick Roberts 2001-12-10 22:37 ` Jeffrey Carter ` (2 more replies) 2001-12-11 14:45 ` Mark Lundquist 1 sibling, 3 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Nick Roberts @ 2001-12-10 19:36 UTC (permalink / raw) "Jeffrey Carter" <jrcarter@acm.org> wrote in message news:3C13D980.748CCCDA@acm.org... > This is a significant problem with NJR5. I need another pantomime chorus, please: >Lists are not strings [all together] "Oh yes they are!" > and use different nomenclature. [all together] "Oh no they don't!" Or, rather, a string is a kind of list (do you really have a problem with that concept?), and what the heck is the problem with using the same nomenclature for both (as far as possible) to help avoid confusing the poor Ada programmer? This isn't an ivory tower academic exercise. > > (3) the closed (passive?) iterator included in both JC01 and TED 1.3 is > > inferior to the open, container-wide iterator (I have already outlined, > > haven't I?) to be added to my proposal, in that it does not permit > > restarting within the client procedure, and it does not permit writing at > > all. > > An iterator procedure is the only thing that is an iterator; anything > else called an iterator is misnamed. According to which science? On which planet, Jeff? Are you serious? > I don't know what you mean by > "writing" in this context. The iterator in JC01 allows updating the > value stored at the current position being acted upon. Insertion and > deletion should take place outside an iterator. Like a file Jeff, the architypal 'container'. You read from it, you write into it. I'd like to hear what TED says, but I am seriously thinking of just going it alone now. I don't have time for sillyness. In fact, I have some fairly specific needs of my own as regards a container suite (for AdaOS), so maybe that colours my judgement; if so, however, that's just tough. I have really appreciated the input from this lengthy (meta?)thread, but I feel the need for action. I need sets! Contars! The wide open spaces! I have not at this moment thought of any names better (hah ;-) than "Tenet" and "Dastar". Dastar is what I have used internally in writing code for AdaOS. It stands for DAta STorage And Retrieval (but is also a Sikh turban, which seems oddly appropriate). Can I pinch one of these for my own containers project, please? -- Best wishes, Nick Roberts ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-10 19:36 ` Nick Roberts @ 2001-12-10 22:37 ` Jeffrey Carter 2001-12-10 23:30 ` Chad R. Meiners 2001-12-11 14:45 ` Mark Lundquist 2001-12-11 14:45 ` Mark Lundquist 2001-12-11 22:45 ` Mark Lundquist 2 siblings, 2 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey Carter @ 2001-12-10 22:37 UTC (permalink / raw) Nick Roberts wrote: > > "Jeffrey Carter" <jrcarter@acm.org> wrote in message > news:3C13D980.748CCCDA@acm.org... > > Or, rather, a string is a kind of list (do you really have a problem with > that concept?), and what the heck is the problem with using the same > nomenclature for both (as far as possible) to help avoid confusing the poor > Ada programmer? This isn't an ivory tower academic exercise. That's a different meaning of "list". You could use a list data structure to implement a string, just as you can for a queue or stack. And just like a queue or stack, the result has different nomenclature than a list. > > An iterator procedure is the only thing that is an iterator; anything > > else called an iterator is misnamed. > > According to which science? On which planet, Jeff? Are you serious? By definition: An iterator is something that iterates. Executable code can iterate. Types and objects cannot. > Like a file Jeff, the architypal 'container'. You read from it, you write > into it. Then in list terminology, by "writing" you mean insertion. Insertion is not advisable from an iterator. -- Jeffrey Carter ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-10 22:37 ` Jeffrey Carter @ 2001-12-10 23:30 ` Chad R. Meiners 2001-12-11 1:42 ` Jeffrey Carter 2001-12-11 14:45 ` Mark Lundquist 1 sibling, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread From: Chad R. Meiners @ 2001-12-10 23:30 UTC (permalink / raw) "Jeffrey Carter" <jeffrey.carter@boeing.com> wrote in message news:3C153926.102B17B1@boeing.com... > By definition: An iterator is something that iterates. Executable code > can iterate. Types and objects cannot. Think back to your computation theory. Executable code is an object. -CRM ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-10 23:30 ` Chad R. Meiners @ 2001-12-11 1:42 ` Jeffrey Carter 2001-12-11 3:40 ` Chad R. Meiners 0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey Carter @ 2001-12-11 1:42 UTC (permalink / raw) "Chad R. Meiners" wrote: > > "Jeffrey Carter" <jeffrey.carter@boeing.com> wrote in message > news:3C153926.102B17B1@boeing.com... > > > By definition: An iterator is something that iterates. Executable code > > can iterate. Types and objects cannot. > > Think back to your computation theory. Executable code is an object. Think back to the name of this newsgroup. In Ada, an object is something with a subtype attached, such as a variable or constant. -- Jeff Carter "Hello! Smelly English K...niggets." Monty Python & the Holy Grail ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-11 1:42 ` Jeffrey Carter @ 2001-12-11 3:40 ` Chad R. Meiners 0 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Chad R. Meiners @ 2001-12-11 3:40 UTC (permalink / raw) Which makes absolutely no difference. Executable code and states can be represented with variables. A passive iterator is a storable iterator state machine. These machines do iterate, and so, your assertion is false. "Jeffrey Carter" <jrcarter@acm.org> wrote in message news:3C156471.A32FC79C@acm.org... > "Chad R. Meiners" wrote: > > > > "Jeffrey Carter" <jeffrey.carter@boeing.com> wrote in message > > news:3C153926.102B17B1@boeing.com... > > > > > By definition: An iterator is something that iterates. Executable code > > > can iterate. Types and objects cannot. > > > > Think back to your computation theory. Executable code is an object. > > Think back to the name of this newsgroup. In Ada, an object is something > with a subtype attached, such as a variable or constant. > > -- > Jeff Carter > "Hello! Smelly English K...niggets." > Monty Python & the Holy Grail ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-10 22:37 ` Jeffrey Carter 2001-12-10 23:30 ` Chad R. Meiners @ 2001-12-11 14:45 ` Mark Lundquist 2001-12-11 15:06 ` Ted Dennison ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Mark Lundquist @ 2001-12-11 14:45 UTC (permalink / raw) "Jeffrey Carter" <jeffrey.carter@boeing.com> wrote in message news:3C153926.102B17B1@boeing.com... > > > > An iterator procedure is the only thing that is an iterator; anything > > > else called an iterator is misnamed. > > I have a tool in my garden shed. It's basically a trencher, but with a double head -- you reverse it and it's like a three-tined hoe. This tool is called a "cultivator" -- that's what the hardware store calls it, anyway (I used to call it a "hoedag", and still do, just to irritate my wife :-). Anyhow... the thing is, Jeff, even after many hours of watching it from my lawn chair, this thing will not actually *cultivate*. It just sits there, propped up against whatever I have propped it up against. I suppose I should take it back to the hardware store for a refund...? Alexader Stepanov came up with this idea for how to write a suite of collection classes, where the collection operations were *not* primitives of the collections. That way, the implementations of the collection operations can be reused, i.e. shared across many collection types, instead of having to be written custom-like for each one, and it allows the functionality of the collection classes to be extended without the limitations of using inheritance for the extension. The collections he calls "containers" and the operations he calls "algorithms". The coupling mechanism between the two is an abstraction he calls an "iterator". Now, this idea is embodied in the Standard Template Library for a language called "C++", which many, many programmers in this quadrant know (or at least are able to claim to know enough to get hired). As a result, most sentient beings in the galaxy are familiar with the concept of an "iterator" as the coupler between containers and algorithms. I'm not saying that the term "iterator" at all follows from Stepanov's usage of it. And I'm not saying he was the first to use the term "iterator" to refer to a handle for traversing a collection. What I am saying is that since he was the one who consolidated and promulgated the concept of "generic programming", he kind of gets to choose the terminology, for better or worse, just because it's a powerful concept and so whatever nomenclature he picked was bound to stick. If he had called them "enumerators" instead, everyone would have accepted that and we'd be stuck with "enumerators" instead. If "iterators" gave anyone heartburn, it wasn't enough to get the name changed. I feel very strongly that a collection library for Ada must have a "generic programming" architecture, i.e. algorithms abstracted away from the collections. If that is to be the case, I think we should stay with the universally understood and accepted nomenclature. Here we are, trying to bring Ada out of the stone age as regards having a decent standard library, and the last thing I want to have to do is explain to the rest of the world, "Well, this here is what is commonly called an 'iterator', but we call ours a Dookus because strictly speaking, it does not iterate, being as it's just an object and cannot actually do anything on its own." I don't think you're gonna be able to get many people to go along with you on this one. You're rowing against the tide, and you're gonna end up being the only one in your boat :-). And I can't say much for your choice of name for the itera... I mean, the uh... the dookus. "Position" is what you call it, right? Well, the term "position" connotes like an index or something -- you know, "first", "third", "last" or whatever, right? "Position" does not carry the meaning of something that denotes an element. Like with an index, the value '7' doesn't denote an object -- you have to combine the index with a container (an array) to get a name for an object: An_Array (7); It's like a house number as opposed to a full street address. A Dookus is not like an index. A Dookus is an abstract pointer. A Dookus really does denote an object, and to get the object you do not need to know what collection it came from. You don't need the collection, you only need the Dookus. We provide some operation like "Value" or whatever, for "dereferencing" the Dookus. Suppose you have a Dookus denoting an element that happens to be the first element in a linked list. Then suppose you insert a new element at the "first" position of the list. Your Dookus still denotes the same element, even though its notional "position" has changed -- it is no longer the first element in the the collection, it is now the second. It seems really strange to say that it still has the same Position! Best wishes, Mark ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-11 14:45 ` Mark Lundquist @ 2001-12-11 15:06 ` Ted Dennison 2001-12-11 15:09 ` Jean-Marc Bourguet ` (2 more replies) 2001-12-11 15:25 ` Larry Hazel 2001-12-12 4:21 ` Jeffrey Carter 2 siblings, 3 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2001-12-11 15:06 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <MZoR7.30524$wL4.108797@rwcrnsc51>, Mark Lundquist says... >And I can't say much for your choice of name for the itera... I mean, the >uh... the dookus. "Position" is what you call it, right? Well, the term >"position" connotes like an index or something -- you know, "first", It was called "Position" in the Strawman back when I wasn't presenting a safe iterator, with an interal pointer back to its list. In that mode it really did act like an array index, except that you didn't have random access. Now that the Strawman is presenting a safe iterator object, the name "Iterator" seemed more appropriate. That's why it is that way in 1.3. Anyway, JC01 presents an unsafe style iterator. His comments say it could go either way, but if its safe, there's no sense in supplying the list with it like all JC01's routines do, so I think his presentation only makes sense for an unsafe iterator. For an unsafe iterator, I think "Position" is reasonable, as it at least underlines that you can't expect the compiler to do all your checking for you like you would with a true iterator. Which one we use is something that still needs to be decided. Perhaps there hasn't been much discussion about this because everyone is happy with the way the latest Strawman does it (safe)? --- 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-11 15:06 ` Ted Dennison @ 2001-12-11 15:09 ` Jean-Marc Bourguet 2001-12-11 17:18 ` Stephen Leake 2001-12-12 4:29 ` Jeffrey Carter 2 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Jean-Marc Bourguet @ 2001-12-11 15:09 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com> writes: > Which one we use is something that still needs to be decided. Perhaps there > hasn't been much discussion about this because everyone is happy with the > way the latest Strawman does it (safe)? I'm happy with it. -- Jean-Marc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-11 15:06 ` Ted Dennison 2001-12-11 15:09 ` Jean-Marc Bourguet @ 2001-12-11 17:18 ` Stephen Leake 2001-12-12 4:29 ` Jeffrey Carter 2 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Stephen Leake @ 2001-12-11 17:18 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com> writes: > Which one we use is something that still needs to be decided. Perhaps there > hasn't been much discussion about this because everyone is happy with the way > the latest Strawman does it (safe)? I vote for the name "Iterator" (or "Iterator_Type" :), basically because of the C++ STL usage. I'd like to see an implementation of the safe iterator, so I can judge how much overhead I'm signing up for. From the discussion I've seen so far, it doesn't sound bad, so I'm provisionally voting for safe iterators. -- -- Stephe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-11 15:06 ` Ted Dennison 2001-12-11 15:09 ` Jean-Marc Bourguet 2001-12-11 17:18 ` Stephen Leake @ 2001-12-12 4:29 ` Jeffrey Carter 2001-12-12 14:40 ` Ted Dennison 2 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey Carter @ 2001-12-12 4:29 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Dennison wrote: > > Anyway, JC01 presents an unsafe style iterator. His comments say it could go > either way, but if its safe, there's no sense in supplying the list with it like > all JC01's routines do, so I think his presentation only makes sense for an > unsafe iterator. For an unsafe iterator, I think "Position" is reasonable, as it > at least underlines that you can't expect the compiler to do all your checking > for you like you would with a true iterator. It presents a specification that doesn't bias the implementation. If you leave the list parameters off, you can't have an unsafe implementation, but putting them in doesn't prevent a safe implementation. > Which one we use is something that still needs to be decided. Perhaps there > hasn't been much discussion about this because everyone is happy with the way > the latest Strawman does it (safe)? I'm not too concerned either way. Complete safety means insertion and deletion are O(M) in time, where M is the number of Locations in existence. The additional protection this gets you over mostly safe Locations seems to be against pathological cases, misuse of a list of a kind that I've never actually seen in practice (and I've seen some pretty poor code using lists with completely unsafe Locations). So, I'm not sure complete safety is worth the effort, but I won't be bothered if it's deemed essential for the standard list. -- Jeff Carter "My brain hurts!" Monty Python's Flying Circus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-12 4:29 ` Jeffrey Carter @ 2001-12-12 14:40 ` Ted Dennison 0 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2001-12-12 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3C16DD1F.E768B33@acm.org>, Jeffrey Carter says... >existence. The additional protection this gets you over mostly safe >Locations seems to be against pathological cases, misuse of a list of a >kind that I've never actually seen in practice (and I've seen some >pretty poor code using lists with completely unsafe Locations). So, I'm >not sure complete safety is worth the effort, but I won't be bothered if >it's deemed essential for the standard list. That's pretty much my feelings on it too. But it does seem to be the case that the current (safe) version of the Strawman is the only one that has not drawn any complaints about the iterator implementation. I have to admit that students, one of the target audiences of this facility, are quite likely to generate those pathalogical cases of misuse. :-) --- 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-11 14:45 ` Mark Lundquist 2001-12-11 15:06 ` Ted Dennison @ 2001-12-11 15:25 ` Larry Hazel 2001-12-12 4:21 ` Jeffrey Carter 2 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Larry Hazel @ 2001-12-11 15:25 UTC (permalink / raw) Mark Lundquist wrote: > > And I can't say much for your choice of name for the itera... I mean, the > uh... the dookus. Ah Yes, a Dookus. I like it. LOL Larry ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-11 14:45 ` Mark Lundquist 2001-12-11 15:06 ` Ted Dennison 2001-12-11 15:25 ` Larry Hazel @ 2001-12-12 4:21 ` Jeffrey Carter 2001-12-12 14:32 ` Stephen Leake ` (2 more replies) 2 siblings, 3 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey Carter @ 2001-12-12 4:21 UTC (permalink / raw) Mark Lundquist wrote: > > I have a tool in my garden shed. It's basically a trencher, but with a > double head -- you reverse it and it's like a three-tined hoe. This tool is > called a "cultivator" -- that's what the hardware store calls it, anyway (I > used to call it a "hoedag", and still do, just to irritate my wife :-). So you have a combination trenching tool and hoe that someone misnamed a "cultivator". And your point is? > Alexader Stepanov came up with this idea for how to write a suite of > collection classes, where the collection operations were *not* primitives of > the collections. That way, the implementations of the collection operations > can be reused, i.e. shared across many collection types, instead of having > to be written custom-like for each one, and it allows the functionality of > the collection classes to be extended without the limitations of using > inheritance for the extension. The collections he calls "containers" and > the operations he calls "algorithms". The coupling mechanism between the > two is an abstraction he calls an "iterator". Now, this idea is embodied in > the Standard Template Library for a language called "C++", which many, many > programmers in this quadrant know (or at least are able to claim to know > enough to get hired). As a result, most sentient beings in the galaxy are > familiar with the concept of an "iterator" as the coupler between containers > and algorithms. Oh, I get it now. Since C++ got it wrong, Ada should get it wrong to be compatible with C++. An excellent idea. Along the same lines, I suggest removing type checking from Ada, and replacing "begin" and "end" with {}. We'd better introduce the reserved words "class" and "friend" while we're at it. > And I can't say much for your choice of name for the itera... I mean, the > uh... the dookus. "Position" is what you call it, right? "Position" is what it's usually called in the data structures literature in describing the abstraction called a list. -- Jeff Carter "My brain hurts!" Monty Python's Flying Circus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-12 4:21 ` Jeffrey Carter @ 2001-12-12 14:32 ` Stephen Leake 2001-12-12 19:40 ` Mark Lundquist 2001-12-16 13:23 ` Georg Bauhaus 2 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Stephen Leake @ 2001-12-12 14:32 UTC (permalink / raw) Jeffrey Carter <jrcarter@acm.org> writes: > Oh, I get it now. Since C++ got it wrong, Ada should get it wrong to be > compatible with C++. An excellent idea. Along the same lines, I suggest > removing type checking from Ada, and replacing "begin" and "end" with > {}. We'd better introduce the reserved words "class" and "friend" while > we're at it. I can be pedantic with the best of them, but there are times when it pays to bow to practicality. I doubt we will ever get agreement on the "right" definition of "list" and related terms; even the people here who are quoting college texts disagree. So I'll go with popularity on this one. > "Position" is what it's usually called in the data structures literature > in describing the abstraction called a list. Can we get rid of these absolutist statements, and provide some concrete references? I have no idea how to go about accessing "the" data structures literature, so this statement is of no help to me. I also find it hard to believe there is a monolithic set of such literature, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. On the other hand, I do have access to a good library, so a reference to a real book or journal would be useful. -- -- Stephe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-12 4:21 ` Jeffrey Carter 2001-12-12 14:32 ` Stephen Leake @ 2001-12-12 19:40 ` Mark Lundquist 2001-12-16 13:23 ` Georg Bauhaus 2 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Mark Lundquist @ 2001-12-12 19:40 UTC (permalink / raw) "Jeffrey Carter" <jrcarter@acm.org> wrote in message news:3C16DB37.A0F02702@acm.org... > Mark Lundquist wrote: > > > > I have a tool in my garden shed. It's basically a trencher, but with a > > double head -- you reverse it and it's like a three-tined hoe. This tool is > > called a "cultivator" -- that's what the hardware store calls it, anyway (I > > used to call it a "hoedag", and still do, just to irritate my wife :-). > > So you have a combination trenching tool and hoe that someone misnamed a > "cultivator". And your point is? Look, if you can't see the obvious connection between gardening tools and collection libraries, then I'm afraid I can't help you :-) :-) :-) Anyway, since you'll be away for a while... Merry Christmas / Hannukah / Santa Day / Bah-Humbug Day (whatever the case may be) and Happy New Year... -- Mark ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-12 4:21 ` Jeffrey Carter 2001-12-12 14:32 ` Stephen Leake 2001-12-12 19:40 ` Mark Lundquist @ 2001-12-16 13:23 ` Georg Bauhaus 2 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2001-12-16 13:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Jeffrey Carter <jrcarter@acm.org> wrote: :> The coupling mechanism between the :> two is an abstraction he calls an "iterator". Now, this idea is embodied in :> the Standard Template Library for a language called "C++", ... :> As a result, most sentient beings in the galaxy are :> familiar with the concept of an "iterator" as the coupler between containers :> and algorithms. : : Oh, I get it now. Since C++ got it wrong, Ada should get it wrong to be : compatible with C++. Why not use the opportunity and come up with an appropriate name since people have to grow accustomed to the dfferent flavour of programming lanuage that Ada is, anyway? Perhaps call one of the things a Hopper? Georg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-10 19:36 ` Nick Roberts 2001-12-10 22:37 ` Jeffrey Carter @ 2001-12-11 14:45 ` Mark Lundquist 2001-12-11 15:11 ` Ted Dennison 2001-12-12 4:31 ` Jeffrey Carter 2001-12-11 22:45 ` Mark Lundquist 2 siblings, 2 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Mark Lundquist @ 2001-12-11 14:45 UTC (permalink / raw) "Nick Roberts" <nickroberts@adaos.worldonline.co.uk> wrote in message news:9v37s0$cdmva$3@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de... > > According to which science? On which planet, Jeff? Are you serious? > > [snip] > > I have really appreciated the input from this lengthy (meta?)thread, but I > feel the need for action. I need sets! Contars! The wide open spaces! > > I have not at this moment thought of any names better (hah ;-) than "Tenet" > and "Dastar". Contars? Dastars? Tenet? I think you are the one who must be from another planet, Nick! That's it... you're an acid-dropping dope fiend from the planet Contar! That would also explain why you need the "wide open spaces"... the wide open *interstellar* spaces, am I right, eh? How many more of you are there among us, that's what I want to know! Jeff's a little misguided about this "iterator" business, but it's a personal hangup -- please do not think that is representative of planet Earth. Tell your people that they are "iterators" here as well, just like everywhere else in the galaxy. Best wishes from Earth, - Marktar ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-11 14:45 ` Mark Lundquist @ 2001-12-11 15:11 ` Ted Dennison 2001-12-11 17:43 ` Nick Roberts 2001-12-12 4:31 ` Jeffrey Carter 1 sibling, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2001-12-11 15:11 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <MZoR7.32760$ER5.370062@rwcrnsc52>, Mark Lundquist says... > >I think you are the one who must be from another planet, Nick! That's it... >you're an acid-dropping dope fiend from the planet Contar! That would also >explain why you need the "wide open spaces"... the wide open *interstellar* >spaces, am I right, eh? How many more of you are there among us, that's >what I want to know! Nick, I take back everything bad I ever said about you. We are nice friendly folk down here on Earth, really. Please tell your masters back on Contar to find their leibenstraum on some other planet..unless they like it really cold with no ozone layer. In that case, they can have Antartica if they'll just promise not to slaughter the rest of us. --- 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-11 15:11 ` Ted Dennison @ 2001-12-11 17:43 ` Nick Roberts 2001-12-12 0:37 ` Mark Lundquist 0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread From: Nick Roberts @ 2001-12-11 17:43 UTC (permalink / raw) "Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message news:wmpR7.57437$xS6.92885@www.newsranger.com... > In article <MZoR7.32760$ER5.370062@rwcrnsc52>, Mark Lundquist says... > > > >I think you are the one who must be from another planet, Nick! That's it... > >you're an acid-dropping dope fiend from the planet Contar! That would also > >explain why you need the "wide open spaces"... the wide open *interstellar* > >spaces, am I right, eh? How many more of you are there among us, that's > >what I want to know! > > Nick, I take back everything bad I ever said about you. We are nice friendly > folk down here on Earth, really. Please tell your masters back on Contar to find > their leibenstraum on some other planet..unless they like it really cold with no > ozone layer. In that case, they can have Antartica if they'll just promise not > to slaughter the rest of us. [Made me laugh loudly. Excellent.] ... Message coming in {sound of Morse code} ... WE ARE THE CONTARI YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED RESISTANCE IS FUTILE ... the skies are getting dark ... What I really love is the fact that, despite the Borg having successfully conquered half the galaxy, any Borg drone can be disabled by simply pulling some plug out of the back of its neck! Shame. Daleks? Just run up a flight of steps. ... Oh no! Not content just to conquor Earth, the evil Contari have brought along their dreaded allies the TALIBANI {duh duh DUH} ... ... But wait! Who is this coming to rescue? Is it the saviour of mankind? Yes! It's ... Colin Powell Man! See him fly! And here come his friends, the mighty Delta Forces ;-) ... Don't miss next week's exciting episode {music} ... Well, I hope my little moment of petulance is forgiven. Never one to give up (when any sensible person would ;-) I'm going to give it one more shot. Do have a little scream, if it might make you feel any better. I believe that the majority of Ada programmers would prefer that the names of the subprograms and types for containers favoured practicality over terminological exactitude. And it seems to me that re-using names and concepts from Ada.Strings.* (and other existing standard Ada library units) would be welcomed by most Ada programmers as having consistency and mnemonic value, even if they don't actually correspond to the 'classic' list operations and terminology from the textbooks. That is my argument as regards names; take it or leave it. Again, on the theme of practicality, I don't care whether they're called iterators, enumerators, cultivators, dooki, or unidirectifiscanators, but I believe my scheme has the following benefits: (1) My iterators are container-wide. This means that an algorithm (a subprogam) can be based on iterators, and then any kinds of containers (list, set, contar, file, array) can be used in conjunction with it. Thus my iterators form a key link between algorithms and data (containers), just as Mark was talking about. (2) My iterators distinguish between data streams: which do not terminate; which do terminate; which can be restarted. This allows algorithms that require termination or restarting to demand these qualities (usually) statically, but it allows terminating and restarting data streams to be used without any difficulty with algorithms that do not require these qualities. (3) My iterators provide 'write' forms as well as 'read' forms. This may not conform to classic doctrine, but it is nevertheless useful: it means that algorithms can write data into containers, as well as reading data from them, without having to be container-specific. Writing into containers such as lists, sets, and contars works just like inserting (or appending); writing into a file or pipe needs no explanation (surely!). My theme, as I hope is obvious by now, is practicality, practicality, practicality. Is that snoring I can hear at the back there? All right then, this is Mork signing off for another episode. Nanu Nanu. -- Greetings to all Earthlings Peace and Goodwill unto you all Klaatu Beringa Nicto Nick Roberts (aka 'Kraatis') PS: I hope my attempt at humour is not considered in poor taste. It is meant in the lightest of ways. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-11 17:43 ` Nick Roberts @ 2001-12-12 0:37 ` Mark Lundquist 0 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Mark Lundquist @ 2001-12-12 0:37 UTC (permalink / raw) "Nick Roberts" <nickroberts@adaos.worldonline.co.uk> wrote in message news:9v5gjn$d9cth$2@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de... > > PS: I hope my attempt at humour is not considered in poor taste. It is meant > in the lightest of ways. > Listen, if I can go around claiming to have exposed you for an acid-crazed extraterrestrial, I think you've got plenty of time before the bad taste police come knocking on your door... :-) :-) :-) Best wishes, Mark ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-11 14:45 ` Mark Lundquist 2001-12-11 15:11 ` Ted Dennison @ 2001-12-12 4:31 ` Jeffrey Carter 1 sibling, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey Carter @ 2001-12-12 4:31 UTC (permalink / raw) Mark Lundquist wrote: > > I think you are the one who must be from another planet, Nick! That's it... > you're an acid-dropping dope fiend from the planet Contar! That would also > explain why you need the "wide open spaces"... the wide open *interstellar* > spaces, am I right, eh? How many more of you are there among us, that's > what I want to know! Nick's posts make much more sense in light of this information. -- Jeff Carter "My brain hurts!" Monty Python's Flying Circus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-10 19:36 ` Nick Roberts 2001-12-10 22:37 ` Jeffrey Carter 2001-12-11 14:45 ` Mark Lundquist @ 2001-12-11 22:45 ` Mark Lundquist 2001-12-12 1:39 ` Nick Roberts 2 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread From: Mark Lundquist @ 2001-12-11 22:45 UTC (permalink / raw) "Nick Roberts" <nickroberts@adaos.worldonline.co.uk> wrote in message news:9v37s0$cdmva$3@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de... > "Jeffrey Carter" <jrcarter@acm.org> wrote in message > news:3C13D980.748CCCDA@acm.org... > > >Lists are not strings > > [all together] "Oh yes they are!" > > > and use different nomenclature. > > [all together] "Oh no they don't!" > > Or, rather, a string is a kind of list (do you really have a problem with > that concept?), He's not the only one... Look, you have said that you conceive of a list as a "store" into which things are written and out of which things are read. Are you truly saying that if I write Put_Line ("Hello, world"); that you think of the thing I am passing as an instance of a kind such a store? > and what the heck is the problem with using the same > nomenclature for both (as far as possible) to help avoid confusing the poor > Ada programmer? The problem is, as Jeff says, that they are not the same thing, and in fact have little to do with each other. So if anything, you're going to confuse people *more* if your nomenclature is at variance with standard terminology for lists (assuming that there is such a thing...). MHO, -- mark ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-11 22:45 ` Mark Lundquist @ 2001-12-12 1:39 ` Nick Roberts 2001-12-12 10:08 ` Ian Wild 2001-12-12 14:34 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 2 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Nick Roberts @ 2001-12-12 1:39 UTC (permalink / raw) "Mark Lundquist" <mlundquist2@attbi.com> wrote in message news:30wR7.37506$Yy.395982@rwcrnsc53... > Look, you have said that you conceive of a list as a "store" into which > things are written and out of which things are read. Are you truly saying > that if I write > > Put_Line ("Hello, world"); > > that you think of the thing I am passing as an instance of a kind such a > store? Yes indeedy! There are several programming languages in which a string is explicitly a list. Think about LISP. It seems utterly bizarre and beyond all reason to me to suggest that a string is not, in general, a kind of list. It's a list of characters. Isn't that something a four-year-old would understand? Talk about people coming from different planets! I'm not talking about somebody's esoteric academic definition of a list, I'm talking about ordinary everyday people's idea of a list. Most Ada programmers are ordinary everyday people, and it is those programmers whom I am considering when choosing names for the types and subprograms. > > and what the heck is the problem with using the same > > nomenclature for both (as far as possible) to help avoid confusing the > > poor Ada programmer? > > The problem is, as Jeff says, that they are not the same thing, and in > fact have little to do with each other. So if anything, you're going to > confuse people *more* if your nomenclature is at variance with standard > terminology for lists (assuming that there is such a thing...). I think my previous remark kills this one stone dead. A string is a kind of list, ergo any string operation (that is not character-specific) is also a list operation (this is to say nothing about the efficiency of such operations, or the representation of strings and lists). If you have an operation which does something (specifically) for a string and an operation which does the same (analogous) thing for a list, does it not make sense to give them the same name? Let us take as an example a string "ABCDE" and a list (Bob, Tom, Jim, Fred, Pete). If we have an operation called 'Head' that returns the first element of a string ('A' in the example), do you think Ada programmers are going to thank you for calling the same list operation (which would return Bob in the example) something else ('First', 'Front', even 'Cat' or 'Dog')? I don't. I can assure you that, in the big scheme of things, there is no standard terminology for lists. There are a few terms that seem to be used consistently, but only a few. Let us use the terminology already provided by existing Ada standard library packages. That is, I am certain, the best way for a container library to avoid confusion and gain acceptance. Phew! I hope I'm 'getting my message across' as they say. -- Best wishes, Nick Roberts ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-12 1:39 ` Nick Roberts @ 2001-12-12 10:08 ` Ian Wild 2001-12-12 17:03 ` Nick Roberts 2001-12-12 14:34 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread From: Ian Wild @ 2001-12-12 10:08 UTC (permalink / raw) Nick Roberts wrote: > > ... There are several programming languages in which a string is > explicitly a list. Think about LISP. There may indeed be several such languages, but Lisp isn't one of them A Lisp string is an array of characters. (subtypep 'string 'array) ==> T > It seems utterly bizarre and beyond all > reason to me to suggest that a string is not, in general, a kind of list. (subtypep 'string 'list) ==> NIL > It's a list of characters. Apparently not. > Isn't that something a four-year-old would > understand? Maybe. But your typical 4yo doesn't care about O(n) v O(1) access times. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-12 10:08 ` Ian Wild @ 2001-12-12 17:03 ` Nick Roberts 2001-12-12 22:09 ` Brian Rogoff 0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread From: Nick Roberts @ 2001-12-12 17:03 UTC (permalink / raw) Does anyone have a good formula for removing large quantities of egg from the face? -- Best, Nick Roberts "Ian Wild" <ian.wild@eurocontrol.int> wrote in message news:3C172DBE.3B7DB9E9@eurocontrol.int... > Nick Roberts wrote: > > > > ... There are several programming languages in which a string is > > explicitly a list. Think about LISP. > > There may indeed be several such languages, but Lisp isn't > one of them A Lisp string is an array of characters. > > (subtypep 'string 'array) ==> T ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-12 17:03 ` Nick Roberts @ 2001-12-12 22:09 ` Brian Rogoff 0 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Brian Rogoff @ 2001-12-12 22:09 UTC (permalink / raw) On Wed, 12 Dec 2001, Nick Roberts wrote: > Does anyone have a good formula for removing large quantities of egg from > the face? Take one Remington 870, rack one 00 shell in, disengage safety, point at egg stain, and pull trigger. Boom, egg and face all gone. :-) More seriously, Haskell is such a language. Strings in Haskell are lists of characters. One of the boneheaded mistakes of Haskell if you ask me. That's what happens when all of the language designers come from academia. -- Brian > > -- > Best, > Nick Roberts > > "Ian Wild" <ian.wild@eurocontrol.int> wrote in message > news:3C172DBE.3B7DB9E9@eurocontrol.int... > > Nick Roberts wrote: > > > > > > ... There are several programming languages in which a string is > > > explicitly a list. Think about LISP. > > > > There may indeed be several such languages, but Lisp isn't > > one of them A Lisp string is an array of characters. > > > > (subtypep 'string 'array) ==> T > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-12 1:39 ` Nick Roberts 2001-12-12 10:08 ` Ian Wild @ 2001-12-12 14:34 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2001-12-12 14:34 UTC (permalink / raw) The important thing won't be some specific phraseology or word-science - it will be if there is some reasonable level of functionality available. While it is interesting that strings have some similarity to lists, what is probably more important is that there be similar operations and nomenclature with Ada.Strings.* because this will help the programmer transition from one to the other. The rest is window dressing. I'm glad that we seem to have made some really good progress on agreeing on a lot of what needs to be in a list package. If we stay focused on getting a solution together, I think this could be done in some reasonably short time. We're better off leaving the nit-picking to academic critics who can tell us later how badly we botched up the Grand Linked List Theory. :-) In the mean time, there will be a functioning library in use by thousands (we hope!) MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Nick Roberts" <nickroberts@adaos.worldonline.co.uk> wrote in message news:9v6cn5$dcfkh$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de... > > I'm not talking about somebody's esoteric academic definition of a list, I'm > talking about ordinary everyday people's idea of a list. Most Ada > programmers are ordinary everyday people, and it is those programmers whom I > am considering when choosing names for the types and subprograms. > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-09 21:37 ` Jeffrey Carter 2001-12-10 19:36 ` Nick Roberts @ 2001-12-11 14:45 ` Mark Lundquist 2001-12-12 4:32 ` Jeffrey Carter 1 sibling, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread From: Mark Lundquist @ 2001-12-11 14:45 UTC (permalink / raw) "Jeffrey Carter" <jrcarter@acm.org> wrote in message news:3C13D980.748CCCDA@acm.org... > Nick Roberts wrote: > > > > (1) all my nomenclature is derived directly from Ada.Strings.* wherever > > possible, the exceptions being 'cursor', 'cursorage', 'facing', 'prepend', > > 'split', 'move_cursor', and 'restart' (about which nobody seems to have > > argued anyway), and the generic parameter Element_Type, and the function > > End_of_*, both of which I have derived from Ada.*_IO; > > This is a significant problem with NJR5. Lists are not strings and use > different nomenclature. I agree! -- mark ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-11 14:45 ` Mark Lundquist @ 2001-12-12 4:32 ` Jeffrey Carter 2001-12-12 14:48 ` Ted Dennison 2001-12-12 17:02 ` Nick Roberts 0 siblings, 2 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey Carter @ 2001-12-12 4:32 UTC (permalink / raw) I know you'll all be heart broken, but I'll be mostly incommunicado for a few weeks. -- Jeff Carter "My brain hurts!" Monty Python's Flying Circus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-12 4:32 ` Jeffrey Carter @ 2001-12-12 14:48 ` Ted Dennison 2001-12-12 17:02 ` Nick Roberts 1 sibling, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2001-12-12 14:48 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3C16DDFB.B3EF7A2A@acm.org>, Jeffrey Carter says... > >I know you'll all be heart broken, but I'll be mostly incommunicado for >a few weeks. I for one think your contribution has been quite helpful, if for no other reason than in pointing out some inconsistencies in the Strawman. Stop by when you become "communicado" once again. :-) --- 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: ASCL a doomed idea? 2001-12-12 4:32 ` Jeffrey Carter 2001-12-12 14:48 ` Ted Dennison @ 2001-12-12 17:02 ` Nick Roberts 1 sibling, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread From: Nick Roberts @ 2001-12-12 17:02 UTC (permalink / raw) That is unfortunate, because, for all my ranting (about various subjects), I don't underestimate the value of someone telling me I'm wrong. There's no other way of becoming genuinely more knowledgeable. I hope you will be back soon. -- Beat wishes, Nick Roberts "Jeffrey Carter" <jrcarter@acm.org> wrote in message news:3C16DDFB.B3EF7A2A@acm.org... > I know you'll all be heart broken, but I'll be mostly incommunicado for > a few weeks. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-12-16 13:23 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 35+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2001-12-06 20:26 ASCL a doomed idea? Michael Erdmann 2001-12-06 20:49 ` Mark Lundquist 2001-12-09 19:07 ` Nick Roberts 2001-12-09 21:37 ` Jeffrey Carter 2001-12-10 19:36 ` Nick Roberts 2001-12-10 22:37 ` Jeffrey Carter 2001-12-10 23:30 ` Chad R. Meiners 2001-12-11 1:42 ` Jeffrey Carter 2001-12-11 3:40 ` Chad R. Meiners 2001-12-11 14:45 ` Mark Lundquist 2001-12-11 15:06 ` Ted Dennison 2001-12-11 15:09 ` Jean-Marc Bourguet 2001-12-11 17:18 ` Stephen Leake 2001-12-12 4:29 ` Jeffrey Carter 2001-12-12 14:40 ` Ted Dennison 2001-12-11 15:25 ` Larry Hazel 2001-12-12 4:21 ` Jeffrey Carter 2001-12-12 14:32 ` Stephen Leake 2001-12-12 19:40 ` Mark Lundquist 2001-12-16 13:23 ` Georg Bauhaus 2001-12-11 14:45 ` Mark Lundquist 2001-12-11 15:11 ` Ted Dennison 2001-12-11 17:43 ` Nick Roberts 2001-12-12 0:37 ` Mark Lundquist 2001-12-12 4:31 ` Jeffrey Carter 2001-12-11 22:45 ` Mark Lundquist 2001-12-12 1:39 ` Nick Roberts 2001-12-12 10:08 ` Ian Wild 2001-12-12 17:03 ` Nick Roberts 2001-12-12 22:09 ` Brian Rogoff 2001-12-12 14:34 ` Marin David Condic 2001-12-11 14:45 ` Mark Lundquist 2001-12-12 4:32 ` Jeffrey Carter 2001-12-12 14:48 ` Ted Dennison 2001-12-12 17:02 ` Nick Roberts
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox