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: 1997/07/29
Message-ID: <dewar.870163831@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 260112956
References: <dewar.869405750@merv> <EDnEIw.6ME.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
               <5r1l6e$e0h$1@ratatosk.uio.no> <1997Jul22.071638.1@eisner>
              <33D4F30F.5299@online.no> <dewar.869632950@merv>
 <5r5cfh$irn$1@ratatosk.uio.no> <33D74581.DEC93419@elca-matrix.ch>
 <dewar.869803083@merv> <Mats.Weber-2807971207240001@mlma27.elca-matrix.ch>
 <mheaney-ya023680002807970952310001@news.ni.net>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-07-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Matthew said

<<Is there any reason why you'd be averse to pad characters as a solution?>>

Of course, an obvious reason: you really do not want to waste time comparing
pad characters!

The "=" defined in the GNAT bounded strings package of course does not
compare unused characters. So this inefficiency arises only if the
predefined equality is used.

One approach we were considering was a pragma

pragma Equality_Composes (type);

with the obvious meaning.