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: 103376,3d6ef988ec3a5ef7
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: renaming Interfaces.Java.Ada_To_Java_String to the + operator
Date: 1998/01/11
Message-ID: <dewar.884542283@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 314992149
References: <01bd1e34$1632c2c0$24326489@Westley-PC.calspan.com>
 	<dewar.884489205@merv> <871zyej2sg.fsf@ix.netcom.com>
 	<dewar.884531217@merv> <87vhvqhisy.fsf@ix.netcom.com>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 884542567 22035 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-01-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Chris said

<<Your concern being compilation time and efficiency whereas I was
thinking of my ability to transfer my C/Motif skills over to the Ada
lobe of my brain :-)
>>

That's a very legitimate concern and indeed is one of the major arguments
in favor of thin bindings. However, it is still reasonable to worry
about execution time efficiency! (I don't understand your comment about
compilation time here, I don't see that as an issue at all).

>From my point of view

   (a,b,c,d,e,f,g)

is as reasonable translation of

   a,b,c,d,e,f,g

as

   a & b & c & d & e & f & g

actually, I think it is MORE reasonable. Now of course we can have & take
care of the conversions if they are needed automatically, in which case
the fair comparison is with

   (+a,+c,+c,+d,+e,+f,+g)

but still that's fairly reasonable, and I don't think any of these
conventions will intefere with inter-lobel transfer of knowledge.