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: 1997/07/22
Message-ID: <5r1l6e$e0h$1@ratatosk.uio.no>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 258092636
References: <dewar.869405750@merv> <EDnEIw.6ME.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
 <5qvdbn$pno$1@ratatosk.uio.no> <dewar.869545551@merv>
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-07-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


A counted string would be equivalent to a bounded string with individual
maximum string length. All would be assignment compatible if the length of
the assigned string was equal or less to the maximum size of the destinatation.

I suspect bounded strings will perform badly against a counted string
implementation because assignment of strings involves copying the entire array
whether it contains valid data or not. This makes Ada less than wonderful in
applications that involve a lot of bounded string assignments.




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.