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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,97482af7429a6a62
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Language Efficiency
Date: 1995/04/19
Message-ID: <dewar.798322381@gnat>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 101283265
references: <3m9o9q$igf@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov>
 <D6ss6z.Gvw@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> <dewar.797512974@gnat>
 <D7Ao9r.Ho6@irvine.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1995-04-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Adam notes the following curious quotes from this inconsistent guy dewar:

> With regard to the "unexpected penalty" for (others => (others => 0)),
> aggregates certainly generate pretty horrible code in Ada. . . .
                                                     ^^^^^^
not

> aggregates certainly generate pretty horrible code in some
> particular implementations of Ada. . . .


OOPS!,  quite right, just shows how easy it is to fall into the ways
of sin :-) :-)
I meant of course the second (although I think I have to say nearly all,
instead of some particular :-)