Re: ada.strings.unbounded "free" and "String_Access"

["Nick Roberts" <nickroberts@callnetuk.com>]

The purpose is simply this: if Unbounded_String doesn't give you quite
enough flexibility in certain parts of your code (e.g. you need more speed),
you can use the type String_Access instead.

You may well employ the following strategy: convert value(s) of type
Unbounded_String to type String_Access (using the To_String function and the
'new' allocator); operate on the String_Access object(s) as required;
convert the result(s) back to type Unbounded_String (using the
To_Unbounded_String function).

This way, you can use the more encapsulated type Unbounded_String in most of
your code, and only use the lower-level String_Access type where you really
need to. The function Free is provided for you to explicitly deallocate the
String_Access object(s) if you want to (or need to).

Really, the type String_Access, and the function Free, are provided purely
as a convenience. They could easily have been omitted (to be declared
incidentally instead), but that was obviously felt to be just a little too
inconvenient by the designers of Ada 95 (and I agree with them).

--
Nick Roberts
http://www.adapower.com/lab/adaos

"Al Johnston" <sofeise@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:38C5B5AD.D310C559@mindspring.com...
> ...
> But  I was wondering...  why is the type "ada.strings.
> unbounded.string_access" as well as a "free" routine
> for this type, provided in the spec of unbounded.strings?