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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,32d9aa9d79729b31 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.68.238.65 with SMTP id vi1mr17938099pbc.7.1340746833937; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:40:33 -0700 (PDT) Path: l9ni23373pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Adam Beneschan Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Any easy/build-in construct to extract submatrices from larger matrix? Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:40:31 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <3f8db781-fd78-4505-837d-1811c0f9b96f@googlegroups.com> References: <788af57d-750d-418d-94bb-75c6557e36a9@g4g2000pbn.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1340746832 8835 127.0.0.1 (26 Jun 2012 21:40:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 21:40:32 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ User-Agent: G2/1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Date: 2012-06-26T14:40:31-07:00 List-Id: On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 2:19:36 PM UTC-7, Robert A Duff wrote: > > I realize that this may not be important to all programmers, and that > > they'd rather have the ability to express what they want and not worry > > about whether it slows things down ("distributed overhead"). But I > > think that being able to generate efficient code was one of the design > > principles in Ada 83. > > Well, efficient code (or more precisely, avoiding distributed overhead) > was a design goal of Fortran, too, yet Fortran has multi-dim slices. > You have to pass in the "stride" (distance between noncontiguous > pieces). True. That's a pretty small amount of overhead. Really, I was just making an educated guess as to why they allowed 1-dimensional slices but not higher dimensions. I don't have the real answer, unless I happened to guess right. Does anyone else know more about this? -- Adam