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: 103376,93123f6108f30530,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Dale Stanbrough <dale@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
Subject: Yet another efficiency question - To_Lower
Date: 1997/07/02
Message-ID: <5pclke$203$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 254178159
Distribution: world
X-XXMessage-ID: <AFE016DB71011035@sambar.cs.rmit.edu.au>
Organization: RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-07-02T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


I was wondering if the a procedure

   procedure To_Lower (Item : in out String);

would be any more efficient for performing To_Lower operations
than the equivalent function in Ada.Characters.Handling, for when
a string is modified in place, i.e.

   Some_String : String (1..Size);
	
   Some_String := Ada.Characters.Handling.To_Lower (Some_String);

My simple view of the implementation of the function would be that it
allocates space (heap? secondary stack?), copies the values from 
Some_String to the temporary, modifies the value, and then copies it
back. (I'm always concerned when I think I see cases of copies being
made for no good reason).

C's to_lower, of course, just does an in place modification of the
'string'.


Dale