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: 103376,7e29322ee367c19d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Matthew Heaney" <matthew_heaney@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Wrap-Up (was Re: Unchecked_Conversion on different sized types --
 problem?)
Date: 2000/01/15
Message-ID: <ETSf4.273$541.8047@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 572861601
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <qXpf4.429$dw3.15200@news.wenet.net>
 <qaIf4.469$dw3.16808@news.wenet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-ELN-Date: Fri Jan 14 20:41:08 2000
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net 947911268 38.26.192.205 (Fri,
 14 Jan 2000 20:41:08 PST)
Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc.
Mime-version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 20:41:08 PST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-01-15T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <qaIf4.469$dw3.16808@news.wenet.net> , "Mike Silva" 
<mjsilva@jps.net> wrote:

> 4) Enumerations with representation clauses seem to be a little like piggy
> banks -- easy to fill, but harder to extract from.

Don't bother using rep clauses for enum types.  Just use an integer
type.


> So, my solution is to map an enumeration to an array of strings.  Thanks to
> all for your comments.


Someone showed how to use Unbounded_String for this.  There are a couple
of other ways:

1) Use static strings:

  A_String : aliased constant String := "this is a test";
  B_String : aliased constant String := "of the emergency";
  C_String : aliased constant String := "broadcast systems";

  type Index_Subtype is (A, B, C);

  type String_Access is access constant String;

  type String_Table is array (Index_Subtype) of String_Access;

  Table : constant String_Table :=
    (A => A_String'Access,
     B => B_String'Access,
     C => C_String'Access);
begin
    ... Table (B).all ...


This avoids heap use.

2) You can use "dynamic" strings, which get allocated statically:

  type Index_Subtype is (A, B, C);

  type String_Access is access constant String;

  type String_Table is array (Index_Subtype) of String_Access;

  Table : constant String_Table :=
    (A => new String'("this is a test"),
     B => new String'("of the emergency"),
     C => new String'("broadcast system"));


The strings are all static, and because they're designated by a
pointer-to-constant string access object, the compilar is smart enough
to do the allocation statically.  This avoids heap use.


Compilar writers: if we use a little function to call the allocator, ie

  function "+" (S : String) return String_Access is
  begin
    return new String'(S);
  end;

  Table : constant String_Table :=
    (A => +"this is a test",
     B => +"of the emergency",
     C => +"broadcast sytsem");
begin

then is the allocation still done statically?