Re: renaming Interfaces.Java.Ada_To_Java_String to the + operator

[Chris Morgan <mihalis@ix.netcom.com>]

dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

> That's a very legitimate concern and indeed is one of the major arguments
> in favor of thin bindings. However, it is still reasonable to worry
> about execution time efficiency! (I don't understand your comment about
> compilation time here, I don't see that as an issue at all).

For some reason your mention of quadratic time made me think of
parsing the line of code I gave (no idea what order parsing actually
would be) but I did mention efficiency as well by which I meant the
run-time behaviour - I am aware for instance that 

text_io.put(a & b & c .... );

used to be very unpleasantly slow with at least one Ada83 compiler.

> 
> From my point of view
> 
>    (a,b,c,d,e,f,g)
> 
> is as reasonable translation of
> 
>    a,b,c,d,e,f,g
> 
> as
> 
>    a & b & c & d & e & f & g
> 
> actually, I think it is MORE reasonable. Now of course we can have & take
> care of the conversions if they are needed automatically, in which case
> the fair comparison is with
> 
>    (+a,+c,+c,+d,+e,+f,+g)
> 
> but still that's fairly reasonable, and I don't think any of these
> conventions will intefere with inter-lobel transfer of knowledge.


I think all those would be fine. I was just saying it was nice that
someone had offered something to allow an approximation of the varargs
C functions rather than the previous approach of saying "sorry, Ada
doesn't do varargs so you will have to use the non-varargs versions
instead" which wouldn't have fitted in with my accustomed style of
Motif programming.

Chris



-- 
Chris Morgan <mihalis at ix.netcom.com>
     "I'm considering throwing myself out of the window.  It
      wouldn't do me much damage because we're on the ground 
      floor, but it might make for a bit of variety."  - Lizzy Bryant