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: 103376,874f90f0816ffe3b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: stt@houdini.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft)
Subject: Re: Most efficient way to check for null string?
Date: 1997/06/23
Message-ID: <EC8vsI.2nK.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 252102734
Sender: news@inmet.camb.inmet.com (USENET news)
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: houdini.camb.inmet.com
References: <dewar.866897158@merv>
Organization: Intermetrics, Inc.
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-06-23T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


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

: Robert Duff says

: | Tucker Taft <stt@houdini.camb.inmet.com> wrote:
: | >...If you really want to
: | >shave cycles, the following will likely be the most efficient:
: | >
: | >     if Str'Last < Str'First then ...

: | Bletch.  That's the least readable of all, but Tucker's right that it
: | might be more efficient.  ...

: Tuck's suggestion is an excellent example of what programmers should NOT do.

I guess I forgot the smiley ;-).

Please don't write "if Str'Last < Str'First then ..." in your code,
but of course if you must, name it after me... (insert smiley here).

-Tucker Taft   stt@inmet.com   http://www.inmet.com/~stt/
Intermetrics, Inc.  Burlington, MA  USA