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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1116ece181be1aea
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-04 17:49:33 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!216.166.71.14!border3.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp.gbronline.com!news.gbronline.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 19:49:32 -0500
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 19:49:44 -0500
From: Wes Groleau <groleau@freeshell.org>
Reply-To: groleau@freeshell.org
Organization: Ain't no organization here!
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US;
 rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, es-mx, pt-br, fr-ca
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada?
References: <3F739C1D.4030907@attbi.com> <uoex8i8i9.fsf@earthlink.net>
 <na5fnvcqjdvjbutt1s7hu9mhqadjk4jemb@4ax.com> <3F78E850.8010401@comcast.net>
 <slrnbniahu.g9.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <3F797748.3000203@noplace.com> <834clb.uan1.ln@skymaster>
 <3F79EF18.7060600@comcast.net>
 <slrnbnjv9h.f3.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <Y1Aeb.10094$kD3.173@nwrdny03.gnilink.net> <3F7B1076.8060106@comcast.net>
 <5mknnv4u96qqudrt4bd8n4t1cljp2fjlp8@4ax.com> <3F7C810E.7070100@comcast.net>
 <blklut$dala6$2@ID-77047.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <3G2dnS15r8mycOCiXTWJkA@gbronline.com>
 <blm0au$dkoad$2@ID-77047.news.uni-berlin.de>
In-Reply-To: <blm0au$dkoad$2@ID-77047.news.uni-berlin.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <5qWdnWQBj-AB9-KiU-KYuA@gbronline.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.9.86.84
X-Trace: 
 sv3-txwfq3kaSawEVQO0MVz0ZPjAmINpyJss/zdrGu4JnGU/JT+WyKhkVXsZJz7nIws1peBxCApSQOZqEV8!Mp0YnMK2hOdZX1BiBKJl4ZO1/OBa0fLUZ7k6kTe8RoOqNYuBnUjYB+awzzWCyqoIFdNCO8Jeb0mW
X-Complaints-To: abuse@gbronline.com
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@gbronline.com
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.1
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:242
Date: 2003-10-04T19:49:44-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> Observe that this disgusting construction does not serve the purpose,
> because it allocates the memory for the worst case.

Of course it does.  I understand you want constrained
sizes that are not the same, but if you are willing
to make the type have unconstrained elements, nothing
prevents you from putting contrained ones into those slots.

To minimize memory usage in a ragged array, access types
work quite well and do not add significant complexity.
Make them controlled if you're worried about cleanup.

-- 
Wes Groleau

A pessimist says the glass is half empty.

An optimist says the glass is half full.

An engineer says somebody made the glass
        twice as big as it needed to be.