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: 103376,5c1c45943bf6a5bc
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: 'first of strings returned from a function should be 1?
Date: 1997/07/27
Message-ID: <EDzr92.M8o@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 259494746
References: <5rcaqi$le8$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
 <01bc9a76$459c2250$4c8371a5@dhoossr> <5rfcs1$i3j$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-07-27T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <5rfcs1$i3j$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>,
Dale Stanbrough  <dale@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU> wrote:
>Because i wanted to call the function, store the first character and not
>declare a local string. I am guessing that a local string would require
>extra copying (which i generally try to design out of programs)
>from heap to stack, although this may not be the case.

I don't get it.  It sounds like you're willing to painstakingly
calculate 387 characters, and then throw away all but one of them.  But
yet you begrudge the copying of them.

What's the real-life example where this makes sense?

- Bob