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: 103376,978f50245fc02645 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Slice and Unbounded String Date: 1996/12/01 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 201706430 references: <01bbdc70$2e557160$262a6282@cln49ae> organization: New York University newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-12-01T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Bob Duff said (of the bogus declaration of String_Access in Ada.Strings.Unbounded): "Somebody stuck this in at the last minute, just as a convenience." Are you sure of this? Who? And why did it end up so obviously in the wrong place? With a bogus justification: 75 The type String_Access provides a (non-private) access type for explicit processing of unbounded-length strings. The procedure Free performs an unchecked deallocation of an object of type String_Access. Since the type String_Access has nothing whatsoever to do with the type Unbounded_String, I find the wording in para 75 incomprehensible. Mind you a standard String_Access type would be a VERY helpful addition to the language, because then everyone could use it easily, and you would get better interchangable reuse of standard components using this type. Ada.Strings would be a good place to put it, since there is almost nothing there now, but you definitely do NOT want to casually drag in Strings.Unbvounded just to get this definition.