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,e6c9800e35ccfeee X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: tarjeij@ulrik.uio.no (Tarjei Jensen) Subject: Re: GNAT: Performance of String functions Date: 1997/07/21 Message-ID: <5qvdbn$pno$1@ratatosk.uio.no>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 257950208 References: Organization: University of Oslo, Norway Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-07-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: > Robert Dewar wrote: > : Right, that is generally true, we have considered, but not yet implemented, > : a version of unbounded strings that would allocate a little growth space > : in each string value so that, for example, if you are adding one character > : at a time, you do not copy on every addition. I think this would be a > : valuable improvement. >Tucker Taft writes: > For what it is worth, our latest AdaMagic runtime provides for > this growth, and it also avoids the heap completely for "short" > unbounded strings. It looks to me that you are fixing something that is not particularly broken in the first place. The real problem as pointed out before, is that there is no proper counted string in the Ada standard library. With counted strings you get the performance you loose when using unbounded strings improperly. If one really should put the blame on anything it is bounded string which I think is close to useless. Greetings, -- // Tarjei T. Jensen // tarjeij@ulrik.uio.no || fax +47 51 85 87 01 || voice +47 51 85 87 39 // Support you local rescue centre: GET LOST! // Working, but not speaking for the Norwegian Hydrographic Service.