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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1116ece181be1aea
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-09-17 13:14:01 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!news.tu-darmstadt.de!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!carbon.eu.sun.com!btnet-feed5!btnet!news.btopenworld.com!not-for-mail
From: "Martin Dowie" <martin.dowie@btopenworld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada?
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:13:16 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: BT Openworld
Message-ID: <bkaf8s$hha$1@hercules.btinternet.com>
References: <NGs6b.10770$Pa1.519789@read1.cgocable.net>
 <bebbba07.0309062059.6f225b06@posting.google.com>
 <uvfrvanu3.fsf@earthlink.net> <bk1h6o$bqa$1@bob.news.rcn.net>
 <u1xuja5zs.fsf@earthlink.net>
 <bebbba07.0309141159.37274fb3@posting.google.com>
 <3F650BBE.4080107@attbi.com>
 <bebbba07.0309142311.5e985121@posting.google.com>
 <KdadnYb-q-ujZviiU-KYgw@gbronline.com> <3F67AAC6.2000906@attbi.com>
 <RbSdnT6kv7SrdPqiU-KYuQ@gbronline.com>
 <bebbba07.0309171110.192b565c@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host81-129-106-87.in-addr.btopenworld.com
X-Trace: hercules.btinternet.com 1063829596 17962 81.129.106.87 (17 Sep 2003
 20:13:16 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news-complaints@lists.btinternet.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:13:16 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:42638
Date: 2003-09-17T20:13:16+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Russ" <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:bebbba07.0309171110.192b565c@posting.google.com...
> In the previous thread, someone claimed that "+=" needs a temporary
> too for some sort of overflow checking (I don't recall the exact
> reason given). If that is true, then it is an example of an inherent
> inefficiency built in to Ada. For better or worse, C++ has no such
> inefficiency. (I'm just stating a fact, I am *not* claiming that C++
> did it right.)

And Ada will not have this "inefficiency" if _you_ select to remove the
checks. The difference is that you do it _explicitly_ in Ada.

To have equivilent code in C++ if would have to hand-write the
check and then throw the exception.