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: 103376,18a1da27baade824 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-15 14:04:30 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!news-server.bigpond.net.au!not-for-mail From: Dale Stanbrough Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: A copy question.... Organization: RMIT References: <9qedad$i1p$1@newstoo.ericsson.se> <9qehq6$t80$1@newstoo.ericsson.se> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.1 (PPC) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 21:04:28 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 144.132.82.11 X-Complaints-To: news@bigpond.net.au X-Trace: news-server.bigpond.net.au 1003179868 144.132.82.11 (Tue, 16 Oct 2001 07:04:28 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 07:04:28 EST Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14597 Date: 2001-10-15T21:04:28+00:00 List-Id: Petter Fryklund wrote: > Wouldn't it be more efficient to let Int_Pointer point to an Array of > Unsigned_32 and instead of looping just assign the value by means of: > > Array (0 .. 199) := Address_To_Int_Pointer (Address).all (0 .. 199); I hadn't thought of that! Certainly better notationally - probably more efficient at the computer level as well. Dale