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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,8bbf2dbc48e08e2f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!peer1.news.newnet.co.uk!216.196.110.149.MISMATCH!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.astraweb.com!newsrouter-eu.astraweb.com!proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!news.arcor.de!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Subject: Re: Question about Streams and UDP sockets using GNAT.Sockets Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de Organization: cbb software GmbH References: <1153215666.455584.201990@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1fpj192j49rf4$.ma23qkoukku3.dlg@40tude.net> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:12:40 +0200 Message-ID: <5panfv2mft8v$.1ecdqbugkglux$.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Jul 2006 10:12:40 MEST NNTP-Posting-Host: db47199d.newsread4.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=fH:gnb]>B\42j7j^L?86D8:ejgIfPPld4jW\KbG]kaM8liQbn6H@_E96bIf`kK7EQ<[6LHn;2LCV>7enW;^6ZC`4IXm65S@:3>? X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5801 Date: 2006-07-19T10:12:40+02:00 List-Id: On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 00:32:16 GMT, Jeffrey R. Carter wrote: > Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >> >> Yet, the language does not prescribe that each element of that array should >> be written using an individual call to stream's Write. Compare it with an >> implementation of assignment. The language does not require the compiler to >> copy each string character individually. It is free to use memcpy. > > ARM 13.13.2: "For composite types, the Write or Read attribute for each > component is called" > > So the language does prescribe this for arrays. I believe it is relaxed now: "{AI95-00195-01} Explicitly provided a permission that the number of calls to the underlying stream Read and Write operations may differ from the number determined by the canonical operations. If Ada 95 code somehow depended on the number of calls to Read or Write, it could fail with an Ada 2005 implementation. Such code is likely to be very rare; moreover, such code is really wrong, as the permission applies to Ada 95 as well (as it was a Binding Interpretation)." -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de