Re: Access to strings and string subtypes?

[Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>]

In article <wcczorx1tkq.fsf@world.std.com>,
  Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com> wrote:

> I don't think it was purely an efficiency issue.

I really think you are wrong here. I remember these discussions
very well, since I was opposed to this kludge.

> I think we were
> concerned that existing Ada 83 implementations were already
> doing that optimization, and would have difficulty changing
> the way they represent arrays.

If anyone was concerned about this, they never voiced this
concern at any meeting I was at. Perhaps I have forgotten,
but my memory was that this PURELY an efficiency concern.

Really I can't imagine any Ada 83 compiler making this
distinction (the ones that I am familiar with certainly
did not). You should at least be able to come up with one
example to back up your conjecture :-)

Part of the reason I remember is that there were VERY few cases
where we compromised the language for the benefit of existing
implementations in very specific terms (we did have some general
concerns about scope of change).

Really the only case I know of was the infamous "funarg"
decision, designed to favor the existing implementations
(notably from Alsys) of display based stack handling.



Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.