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: 103376,5992229ab824d8f7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) Subject: Re: Q: on redefinition of "= Date: 1996/04/02 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 145453754 references: <4jkj5sINN8d3@aleutian.cis.ohio-state.edu> <3160C33B.1FE2@mcs.com> <4jrlluINN15b@thalamus.cis.ohio-state.edu> organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-04-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <4jrlluINN15b@thalamus.cis.ohio-state.edu>, david scott gibson wrote: >As I mentioned in my post, I'm painfully aware of the negative >implications of this strategy. Unfortunately there is a mismatch >between Ada and the language I'm trying to map to Ada. When I import >some type as a generic parameter, I need to know that the instance >gets a valid representation of that type. With Ada's scalars, this is >impossible. You seem to imply that you want initialization, but not necessarily finalization. It seems to me that it wouldn't be hard for an implementation to special-case those controlled types that have initialization, but not finalization. Most of the cost comes from the finalization support. Of course, that doesn't imply that this optimization is worthwhile -- I'm not sure how many controlled types, outside your application, would benefit. Also, a plain old (non-controlled) record type can have automatic initialization for its components. - Bob