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: 103376,3d6ef988ec3a5ef7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Chris Morgan Subject: Re: renaming Interfaces.Java.Ada_To_Java_String to the + operator Date: 1998/01/11 Message-ID: <87vhvqhisy.fsf@ix.netcom.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 314959951 Sender: cm@mihalis References: <01bd1e34$1632c2c0$24326489@Westley-PC.calspan.com> <871zyej2sg.fsf@ix.netcom.com> Organization: Linux Hackers Unlimited X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Jan 11 10:11:12 AM CST 1998 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-01-11T10:11:12-06:00 List-Id: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > which still retains linear processing time. If Chris' example is anywhere > near realistic (where many operands were joined with &), then I think the > use of & was probably not such a good choice as using aggregates. > Your concern being compilation time and efficiency whereas I was thinking of my ability to transfer my C/Motif skills over to the Ada lobe of my brain :-) Certainly my example was from real code, but as it was my code I can't say if it was realistic for others. Was there a review of the bindings or where they just commisioned and produced? One interesting feature of them is that almost none of the examples of X and Motif programming given in the literature work with a simple translation of C to Ada since the type safety of Ada is so much stronger (the C examples relying on unportable assumptions and silent coercions). Chris -- Chris Morgan "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