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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	FREEMAIL_REPLY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f51e93dacd9c7fca
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-18 15:36:32 PST
From: Vinzent Hoefler <JeLlyFish.software@gmx.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: status of Ada STL?
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 00:36:20 +0200
Organization: JeLlyFish software
References: <bebbba07.0206132321.23d72ac8@posting.google.com>
 <aedgoc$to7$1@news.iucc.ac.il>
 <bebbba07.0206151051.1c25cf1e@posting.google.com> <uu1o31wbb.fsf@wanadoo.fr>
 <bebbba07.0206161023.6073fd3a@posting.google.com>
 <3d0ce154_5@news.bluewin.ch>
 <bebbba07.0206162120.3acf4278@posting.google.com>
 <3d0e574d_2@news.bluewin.ch> <wccelf4zkxk.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.202.192.252
Message-ID: <3d0fb5e8$1_3@news.bluewin.ch>
X-Trace: news.bluewin.ch 1024439784 62.202.192.252 (19 Jun 2002 00:36:24
 +0200)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@bluewin.ch
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-han1.dfn.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news.belwue.de!news.tesion.net!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.bluewin.ch!not-for-mail
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26314
Date: 2002-06-19T00:36:20+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:

>> 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) wrote:
>> >Every good C++ programmer knows that "+=" is much more efficient than
>> >"+" for vector/matrix addition because it eliminates the need for
>> >constructing a temporary matrix to hold the sum.

[...]

>I think Russ is right here.
>
>X := F(X, Y);
>
>is *not* equivalent to the code that overwrites X in place,
>in the general case.  In the usual case, where the called function
>is not inlined, and the compiler doesn't look at its body,
>the compiler has no hope of doing this optimization.
>Even if it's inlined, the proof is not trivial.

Hmm, well. Seems I did not take a closer look on what operator
overloading can do. I still thought of simple C. :(

Anyway, I could declare F (X : inout ...; Y); then, to do the
assignment for me. ;-)


Vinzent.