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,e6c9800e35ccfeee
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: GNAT: Performance of String functions
Date: 1997/07/23
Message-ID: <dewar.869632950@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 258260930
References: <dewar.869405750@merv> <EDnEIw.6ME.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
 <5r1l6e$e0h$1@ratatosk.uio.no> <1997Jul22.071638.1@eisner>
 <33D4F30F.5299@online.no>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-07-23T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Tarjei said

<<That would mean that the implementation supply a default maximum size.
If the implementation should be more effective than the usual bounded
string implementation the compiler whould have to know what the real
length of a string is for assignments. Otherwise the code generated
spends a lot of time copying junk data.

A "smart" compiler is paramount since we cannot do anything about the
assignment operator in Ada. We can write a custom procedure or function
to handle assignment, but it is not the same as ":=".
>>


You are still making unwarranted assumptions about the data structure
used for bounded strings. If the data structure is what you call a
"counted
" string, then no special cleverness is required on the compiler's part.