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: 103376,7f2ce8bda9cae4ab
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
Path: 
 controlnews3.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-ham1.dfn.de!news.uni-hamburg.de!cs.tu-berlin.de!uni-duisburg.de!not-for-mail
From: Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: "Must instantiate controlled types at library level." Why?
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 17:27:10 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: GMUGHDU
Message-ID: <c82vhe$ecp$2@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
References: <Xns94E6C22101F54pchapinsovernet@207.106.92.237>
 <NJeoc.16758$V97.5496@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <Xns94E7453EA8pchapinsovernet@207.106.92.237>
 <13392802.3gDeTK7ybb@linux1.krischik.com>
 <Xns94E7E9D157B38pchapinsovernet@207.106.92.237>
 <2780491.NPbR8AFya6@linux1.krischik.com>
 <Xns94E8433AB7894pchapinsovernet@207.106.93.237>
 <11924003.IfRfnULeIG@linux1.krischik.com>
 <pan.2004.05.13.23.37.39.295683@nowhere.net>
 <1676457.GMYvKY1ieA@linux1.krischik.com> <c82iqd$7bl5@cui1.lmms.lmco.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de
X-Trace: a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de 1084555630 14745 134.91.1.34 (14 May 2004
 17:27:10 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.uni-duisburg.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 17:27:10 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: tin/1.5.8-20010221 ("Blue Water") (UNIX) (HP-UX/B.11.00
 (9000/800))
Xref: controlnews3.google.com comp.lang.ada:585
Date: 2004-05-14T17:27:10+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Xenos <dont.spam.me@spamhate.com> wrote:
: 
: Wrong.  C++ has a string class in its standard library.  Its a lot more
: versitile than Ada's String type.

It would be more fair I think if you compared
Standard.Strings.Unbounded
to
std::string

C++ minus the STL, if I may put it this way, has no Ada-like or STL-like
arrays after all. (But it does have an STL.)


:> Also you use pointers because C/C++ has no "out" or "in out". Ada however
:> decides itself if call by value or call by reference is needed. So no
:> pointers needed here as well.
: Wrong.  C++ has reference types are equivalent to "in out."  Constant
: reference types may be used for "in."

My understanding of Martin's comment is that you can have an Ada
compiler decide whether it thinks that pass by reference is better,
thus you only need to specify the mode, not the passing mechanism.
Is there a similar allowance for C++ compilers?


-- Georg