Re: Flexible Strings (was Equality operator...)

[jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony)]

In article <53F35740C6EF076C.14BEEF8227919F71.39E2B6FED1F30314@library-proxy.airnews.net> clines@delete_this.airmail.net (Kevin Cline) writes:

> I was a member of ANSI X3H3 (PHIGS) for two years.  I read the
> Ada'83 standard cover to cover.

No longer relevant.


> I've read most of the C++ DWP.  Perhaps there is not a lot of
> difference in theory between Ada and C storage management, but there
> is a huge practical difference.

OK, let's hear it.


> In C or C++, the application programmer can take complete control of
> the allocation process in a couple of ways.  In C++, new and delete
> can be redefined globally or on a class-by-class basis.

That's what Ada provides with storage pools.  In fact, it is rather
tighter as you can control the usage of the "pointer types" much more.


> Additionally, the compiler vendor's implementation of malloc and
> free can be replaced with one more carefully tuned to the particular
> application.

First this is (as you point out, but apparently promptly forget) and
implementation issue and not a language issue.  Second, this has been
done in several Ada implementations.  So, you still haven't given an
example.


> Although not mandated by the standard, almost all C compilers do

So, again irrelevant.


> link malloc and free from their run-time library, and replacement
> implementations can be linked instead.  Few Ada compilation systems
> are so open.

There is no reason whatsoever to keep you from doing this as long as
you know what the link names for the alloc/dealloc for the standard
pool are.  Typically this will in fact be good ol' malloc/free.  So,
just replace them.  If not, get the names and replace them.

/Jon



-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com