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-Thread: 103376,115cdbb394b3e615
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!proxad.net!newsfeed.stueberl.de!newsr1.ipcore.viaginterkom.de!news-peer1!btnet-feed5!btnet!news.btopenworld.com!not-for-mail
From: Martin Dowie <martin.dowie@btopenworld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Why can't you create a out of order subtype?
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 06:49:05 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: BT Openworld
Message-ID: <ctv5t1$iqp$1@sparta.btinternet.com>
References: <1107301914.648240.237290@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
	<h5VLd.4199$cl1.3735@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
	<mailman.114.1107367326.527.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
	<ctra1p$nnl$1@titan.btinternet.com>	<wccpszhctzo.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <mailman.121.1107462019.527.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host81-154-188-69.range81-154.btcentralplus.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: sparta.btinternet.com 1107499745 19289 81.154.188.69 (4 Feb 2005
 06:49:05 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news-complaints@lists.btinternet.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 06:49:05 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.121.1107462019.527.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0RC1 (Windows/20041201)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8166
Date: 2005-02-04T06:49:05+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Marius Amado Alves wrote:
>>> That's very, very, very slow...
>>
>>
>> True (if it works at all).
> 
> 
> Before I though you were complaining about the slowness of the Image 
> (Value) operations (because there is probably parsing involved and 
> string values on and off the stack) compared with unchecked conversion 
> and 'Valid (which is very probably faster). Now I realise that you were 
> probably complaining about the slowness of the exception handling 
> mechanism. In that case, my experience with GNAT is that it is not that 
> slow at all. I've made controlled experiments in the past. I think I 
> reported them here.

No, I was complaining about the 'Value/'Image calls. I didn't think it 
was worth re-hashing the ol' "exceptions are slow" argument! :-)

Cheers

-- Martin