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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: 109fba,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: 115aec,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: f43e6,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid109fba,gid115aec,gidf43e6,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsread.com!news-xfer.newsread.com!nntp.abs.net!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!uio.no!newsfeed1.e.nsc.no!news2.e.nsc.no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Sender: leifm@huldreheim.no-ip.org Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.realtime,comp.software-eng Subject: Re: [OT] Re: Teaching new tricks to an old dog (C++ -->Ada) References: <4229bad9$0$1019$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> <1110032222.447846.167060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <871xau9nlh.fsf@insalien.org> <3SjWd.103128$Vf.3969241@news000.worldonline.dk> <87r7iu85lf.fsf@insalien.org> <1110052142.832650@athnrd02> <1800709.LegSC0zdoW@linux1.krischik.com> <1110099035.843154@athnrd02> From: Leif Roar Moldskred Message-ID: <873bv9m4ni.fsf@huldreheim.no-ip.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.108.61.198 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@telenor.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 11:48:01 MET X-Trace: news2.ulv.nextra.no 1110106081 83.108.61.198 Date: 06 Mar 2005 11:48:17 +0100 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8737 comp.lang.c++:44313 comp.realtime:1009 comp.software-eng:4541 Date: 2005-03-06T11:48:17+01:00 List-Id: Ioannis Vranos writes: > The one remaining, does it support namespaces? :-) What subset of the > procedural paradigm it does not support? Yes, of course. > I do not know much on the language, but can one define general-purpose > containers with Ada's generics that do range checking and throw an > exception when there is an attempt to access outside the boundaries of > the container, even if the aforementioned run-time safety is switched > off? Yes, but there's no point, as turning off the automatic boundary checks and then do manual boundary checks instead doesn't gain you anything except pain. (In fact, the automatic boundary checks can be more efficent since compilers might optimize away checks that aren't needed.) -- Leif Roar Moldskred