Mike, and the Team,
The reason why I didn't attach the files to the TA post or the comp.lang.ada
post was because this is bad netiquette. The files are only ~40KB, but even
so, many people would frown on me just sending these out unsolicited.
Am I right about this, or is there a consensus on this list that would agree
to me posting these files as an attachment to the whole list? (I guess my
original post, Mike's, and then this, total >40KB anyway ;-)
I would have sent them to be put on the SIGAda SCLWG web page
(http://www.suffix.com/Ada/SCL), but their 'forum' page seems to have broken
for a while, and the site doesn't seem to have had any activity for months
(which is why I started the "adascl" eGroup). Does anyone know what has
become of this site?
I reiterate that anyone (except spammers and trollers) is welcome to join
the eGroup, and anyone can e-mail me if they want me to send them the files
I think, possibly, my proposal answers Mike's questions about nested
structures. Specifically, I make a point of mentioning that the data type
handled by all of the structures described can be an access type. This way,
data buried in any depth of structuring can be 'got at' - via the
dereferencing of access values - without actually having to read and write
the encompassing structures wholesale.
Note that one of the files has already been revised. (The revision has been
uploaded to the eGroup.)
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Brenner <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 09 September 1999 14:11
Subject: Re: ASCL Proposal NJR (1)
| After a few minutes of searching it turns out that they are not in
| the VAULT directory, but in the DOCVAULT directory, and that
| directory is password protected.
| Could you consider posting your files to a system that is not
| restricted to members only, such as comp.lang.ada or this mailgroup
| or some public web page?
| Your e-mail summary of your preliminary proposal in message number 2
| addresses only one level deep objects that are equivalent to simple
| What happens with nested sets, lists of lists of stacks of records,
| etc.? How do you replace one piece of one of the records in a list
| of lists of stacks of records without copying the whole record? If
| all the intermediate record types have this waste, does that mean
| that to use your proposal we must break all structures containing
| records into parallel structures containing each only one of the
| record's components? I guess we shall have to wait until we can gain
| access to your two documents to find out. Stay tuned to this email
| list for further instructions on accessing these two documents.