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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,703c4f68db81387d
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,703c4f68db81387d
X-Google-Thread: 115aec,703c4f68db81387d
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,703c4f68db81387d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid109fba,gid115aec,gidf43e6,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: fmdf@tiscali.it
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.realtime,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Teaching new tricks to an old dog (C++ -->Ada)
Date: 10 Mar 2005 19:00:53 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1110510053.438360.218460@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
References: <4229bad9$0$1019$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>
   <1110032222.447846.167060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <871xau9nlh.fsf@insalien.org>
   <3SjWd.103128$Vf.3969241@news000.worldonline.dk>
   <87r7iu85lf.fsf@insalien.org>
   <1110052142.832650@athnrd02>
   <d0dkq6$781$1@titan.btinternet.com>
   <1110284070.410136.205090@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
   <395uqaF5rhu2mU1@individual.net>
   <uk6oigfzi.fsf@obry.org>
   <1110329098.642196@athnrd02>
   <u3bv5gq0y.fsf@obry.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.181.51.48
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1110510057 29385 127.0.0.1 (11 Mar 2005 03:00:57
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 03:00:57 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <u3bv5gq0y.fsf@obry.org>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=80.181.51.48;
   posting-account=Lp02jQ0AAABMd3TAghNf0TM2YBZqD_JE
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9084 comp.lang.c++:45041
 comp.realtime:1231 comp.software-eng:4799
Date: 2005-03-10T19:00:53-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Pascal Obry wrote:
> Ioannis Vranos <ivr@remove.this.grad.com> writes:
>

> [cut]

> And no C++ compiler will check that Data[i] is valid. That's the
point. If
> you
> add the check explicitly no C++ compiler will be able to remove it.
In the
> Ada
> case the compiler knows lot more about the program and can decide to
remove
> the check if it knows that the index will never be outside the object
> range. This is always the case for:
>
>    for K in Data'Range loop
>       ... Data(k)...
>
> Pascal.

In order to suppress all checks, with Ada we can use Pragma Suppress()
yet with C++ we have to write a totally different new code when you
don't want anymore checks (if using C++ "try .. catch" constructs).

Is it true, isn't it?

fabio de francesco