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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,3ccb707f4c91a5f2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: fjh@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) Subject: Re: Unbounded strings (Was: Java vs Ada 95 (Was Re: Once again, Ada absent from DoD SBIR solicitation)) Date: 1996/11/24 Message-ID: <579o37$d35@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 198422849 references: <325BC3B3.41C6@hso.link.com> organization: Comp Sci, University of Melbourne newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-11-24T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: >Unbounded_String's are built into the language from a semantic point of view. >There are two possible implementations that are reasonable There are more than just two. For example, a third reasonable implementation is to use garbage-collected storage with copy-on-write. This has potential advantages over the two implementations that you considered: it avoids the overhead of copying, and avoids the overhead of locking. (Of course, there are some potential disadvantages too.) -- Fergus Henderson | "I have always known that the pursuit WWW: | of excellence is a lethal habit" PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3 | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.