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: 103376,80a67c84f8039eab
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Some questions on a library design
Date: 1997/06/22
Message-ID: <dewar.866984383@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 251784931
References: <Pine.SGI.3.95.970616161142.25177A-100000@shellx.best.com>
 <EBxrtu.7v6@world.std.com> <01bc7c41$a3f397a0$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-06-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Nick says

<<In theory, but not often in practice. And in no case is the inefficiency of
the extra tag removed, nor of the dynamic tag checking (and sometimes
dynamic access checking).
>>

Several points here. I do not understand the "theory, not often in practice"
comment here. The original post seems exactly correct, and I cannot see Nick's
objection.

"inefficiency of the extra tag removed
"

Also not understandable, there is no requirement in the language for any
"extra tag" here. Some implementations may have various inefficiencies, but
if you are claiming that there is some fundamental inefficiency here, the
basis of this claim is unclear.

"dynamic tag checking"

This is entirely optional, how can you complain about an option?

"dynamic access checking"

This is entirely optional, how can you complain about an option?