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: 103376,5b3aa4bc9027f04e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: sjw <simon.j.wright@mac.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Unconstrained Arrays
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 23:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <46281cbb-2804-41e8-87a0-251c9060d4d1@c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <1a8008fb-c840-45bc-824c-d10eec9fe569@d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
	<jkDvl.615065$yE1.211920@attbi_s21>
 <0caa9cf8-0620-4544-9b2c-2c9f24142b7f@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
	<zqGvl.19243$DP1.9724@attbi_s22> <cvRvl.19954$DP1.9142@attbi_s22>
	<386b0e00-a1c6-4c5f-adf7-89b8543d0e2d@c11g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
	<Xns9BD3DEB24B6F2pcc482719gmailcom@198.186.192.137>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.20.239.213
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1237531527 5662 127.0.0.1 (20 Mar 2009 06:45:27
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 06:45:27 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.20.239.213;
	posting-account=_RXWmAoAAADQS3ojtLFDmTNJCT0N2R4U
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_5_6; en-us)
	AppleWebKit/525.27.1 (KHTML,
 like Gecko) Version/3.2.1 Safari/525.27.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5170
Date: 2009-03-19T23:45:27-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Mar 20, 1:53=A0am, "Peter C. Chapin" <pcc482...@gmail.com> wrote:
> belteshazzar <gbelteshaz...@gmail.com> wrote innews:386b0e00-a1c6-4c5f-ad=
f7-89b8543d0e2d@c11g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Unfortuantely this is an optimisation and actually doesn't occur with
> > optimisation off. (I just ran a test program). I'm told that due to
> > the significant performance hit of the array initialisers when
> > optimisation is turned off we can't use that.
>
> Are those initializers actually necessary?
>
> type Unconstrained_Array is array(Integer range <>) of Integer;
>
> My_Array : Unconstrained_Array(-10_000 .. 10_000);
>
> In the above the array is uninitialized. Yes, you have to provide
> constraints, but you don't have to initialize the array here (obviously
> you'll need to do so eventually... perhaps as part of your algorithm). Th=
e
> code you showed use an array aggregate to initialize the array... the
> constraints where taken from the initializer. However, there are other wa=
ys
> to specify the constraints.

There is a deep language-lawyerly reason (which I don't understand)
why an array like your My_Array can't be aliased (at any rate in
Ada95); you have to use the initialize-with-aggregate approach.
Perhaps that's what leads to the initialize-with-aggregate style.