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: 103376,9fb64e4c58f1fe
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: overload ":=" ???
Date: 1996/07/23
Message-ID: <Duz3ns.2rA@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 170252172
references: <dewar.837740729@schonberg> <Duy6HK.BLM@world.std.com>
 <ws9d91oko89.fsf@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu> <31F40F0C.3FDACA19@jinx.sckans.edu>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-23T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <31F40F0C.3FDACA19@jinx.sckans.edu>,
David Morton  <dmorton@jinx.sckans.edu> wrote:
>I looked at that, and it would be great, but...
>RM A.04.04.106
>seems to say that this isn't good with dynamic pointers
>(or am I misreading this?)

Maybe.  It's just saying (to the Ada implementer) that Bounded_String
should be a record containing a character count, plus an array of
characters containing the max size (as opposed to some pointer-ish
implementation).  You can make pointers to these things if you want to
-- A.4.4(106) is not restricting the *user* in any way.

If you want unbounded strings (which *are* implemented using pointers),
then look at A.4.5.  These are more flexible but less efficient.

>>    If you allow programmers to play with assignment, you'll definitly
>> damage the readability of all Ada sources.

If you allow programmers to play with "+" and "=", you'll ... ;-)

>what about "write-ability" ????

Irrelevant.  If you want that, use perl (I'm echoing Laurent's earlier
remark).  ;-)

- Bob