From: mheaney@ni.net (Matthew Heaney)
Subject: Re: Yet another efficiency question - To_Lower
Date: 1997/07/11
Date: 1997-07-11T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <mheaney-ya023680001107972021210001@news.ni.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 5q4lnk$9m$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au
In article <5q4lnk$9m$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>, Dale Stanbrough
<dale@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU> wrote:
>Robert Dewar writes:
>
>"Indeed, functions returning variable length results will alwqays be less
> efficient than operating in place on an in out fixed length parameter
> (fixed length for a particular call)."
>
>The Ada model for constructors is to have functions returning values.
>The logical implication then is that this is less efficient than the
>C++ in situ constructor model, no?
No - you didn't read Robert's post carefully enough. He said functions
returning "variable length" results. Functions that return constrained
subtypes are just as efficient as anything else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Heaney
Software Development Consultant
<mailto:matthew_heaney@acm.org>
(818) 985-1271
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1997-07-11 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1997-07-02 0:00 Yet another efficiency question - To_Lower Dale Stanbrough
1997-07-03 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1997-07-04 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1997-07-11 0:00 ` Dale Stanbrough
1997-07-11 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney [this message]
1997-07-15 0:00 ` Laurent Guerby
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox