[sv-ec] RE: 0001721: Ballot comment #188 order used for find and find_index

I agree that there is no prescribed traversal order. That is true for all methods, including find_first/index and find_last/index. While it may be beneficial to traverse the array in some order (i.e., for performance), the LRM does not require it. That is left as an optimization.

            Arturo

From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 8:09 AM
To: Rich, Dave; sv-ec@server.eda.org
Subject: [sv-ec] RE: 0001721: Ballot comment #188 order used for find and find_index

What original order?
The 2009 LRM says, "The ordering of the returned elements is unrelated to the ordering of the original array."
The 2005 LRM has a similar statement.

Shalom

________________________________
From: Rich, Dave [mailto:Dave_Rich@mentor.com]
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 6:03 PM
To: Bresticker, Shalom; sv-ec@server.eda.org
Subject: RE: 0001721: Ballot comment #188 order used for find and find_index
So if I propose an ordering, should the original ordering of unique/_index be preserved as well?

________________________________
From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 7:55 PM
To: Rich, Dave; sv-ec@server.eda.org
Subject: RE: 0001721: Ballot comment #188 order used for find and find_index

The text already says that the order is unspecified.
From the comment in the description, "(e.g. traversal is left to right of the bounds, associative is min to max)", it appears to me that the desire was to specify an order.

Shalom

________________________________
From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Rich, Dave
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 3:23 AM
To: sv-ec@server.eda.org
Subject: [sv-ec] 0001721: Ballot comment #188 order used for find and find_index
In reviewing this mantis item, I can't remember the intent of the change being requested.

Section 7.13.1 says  "Array locator methods traverse the array in an unspecified order." and that make sense for all methods other than find_first/_index and find_last/_index. Those methods seem like they should have an order

Was there some desire to specify an order for find/_index, or to specify that the result ordering is unrelated to the original array (like unique/_index)?

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
believed to be clean.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Intel Israel (74) Limited



This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for

the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution

by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended

recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Intel Israel (74) Limited



This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for

the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution

by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended

recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
believed to be clean.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.