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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,4c41b799c707b3fa X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-01-29 22:10:36 PST Path: swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!gwu.edu!gwu.edu!not-for-mail From: mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: access all definitive Date: 30 Jan 1995 00:24:31 -0500 Organization: George Washington University Message-ID: <3ght6f$99v@felix.seas.gwu.edu> References: <1995Jan24.170441.8957@vax.sbu.ac.uk> <3ge71t$h4r@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.164.9.3 Date: 1995-01-30T00:24:31-05:00 List-Id: In article <3ge71t$h4r@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>, Robert Dewar wrote: >fintan said: >one coding style that will develop in Ada 95 is simply to use all on all >access type declarations. However, I am not sure that is such a good idea, >one ought to minimize the use of aliased variables (there is a good reason >that Ada 83 did not have this feature, its overuse is definitely damaging) And the Ada 95 Rationale (I think that is where I read it!) points out that distinguishing the two types leads to potential optimizations, because whereas a general access type (ACCESS ALL) will typically be represented as a full address, a pool-specific (Ada 83) access type might be able to use a more compact rep, since only a specific, probably smaller, storage pool needs to be designated. Mike Feldman