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: 103376,3ccb707f4c91a5f2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Unbounded strings (Was: Java vs Ada 95 (Was Re: Once again, Ada absent from DoD SBIR solicitation)) Date: 1996/11/24 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 198496724 references: <325BC3B3.41C6@hso.link.com> <579o37$d35@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> organization: New York University newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-11-24T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Fergus says "There are more than just two. For example, a third reasonable implementation is to use garbage-collected storage with copy-on-write. This has potential advantages over the two implementations that you considered: it avoids the overhead of copying, and avoids the overhead of locking. (Of course, there are some potential disadvantages too.)" Do you mean by this what I call copy-on-modify, if so this is indeed one of the two possibilities that I considered. Note that if you have a garbage collector around, you could take the position that ANYTHING done with dynamic storage makes things erroneous acrosds tasks, on the grounds that the garbage collector does non syncrhonized conflicting accesses to storage, but this seems a bit extreme :-)