Re: Computer Language Shootout

[Samuel Tardieu <sam@rfc1149.net>]

>>>>> "Bob" == Robert A Duff <Robert> writes:

Bob> True, but I think the design goal of Text_IO ought to be
Bob> correctness, and convenience for the programmer, not efficiency.
Bob> I'm sick of programs that have arbitrary line-length limits.
Bob> I'll happily pay a little efficiency cost to correct that.  And
Bob> in the cases where efficiency matters, a different strategy can
Bob> be used (namely, the Get_Line that takes a fixed-length buffer,
Bob> or a get-next-token kind of approach, which doesn't care about
Bob> line lengths).

Bob,

while I understand why and where such a function would be practical, I
am opposed to it being part of the standard.

The reason is that it would make it much too easy to crash any Ada
program by feeding it with a long string that would exhaust the stack
area (be it the primary stack or, as in GNAT, a secondary stack). In
programs with tasking, the stack for each task is usually very
limited.

You can always use Ada.Strings.Unbounded.Text_IO.Get_Line and convert
it to a string *after you check the length*. You will achieve the same
effect and will not have to rely on (expensive or unreliable) stack
checks.

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam