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
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Dale Stanbrough <dale@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Yet another efficiency question - To_Lower
Date: 1997/07/11
Message-ID: <5q4lnk$9m$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 256187542
Distribution: world
References: <5pclke$203$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
X-XXMessage-ID: <AFEC17980A011B17@obibicut.cs.rmit.edu.au>
Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-07-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Robert Dewar writes:

"Indeed, functions returning variable length results will alwqays be less
 efficient than operating in place on an in out fixed length parameter
 (fixed length for a particular call)."

The Ada model for constructors is to have functions returning values.
The logical implication then is that this is less efficient than the
C++ in situ constructor model, no?


Dale