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: mheaney@ni.net (Matthew Heaney) Subject: Re: GNAT: Performance of String functions Date: 1997/07/21 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 258084675 References: <5qvdbn$pno$1@ratatosk.uio.no> Organization: Estormza Software Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-07-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <5qvdbn$pno$1@ratatosk.uio.no>, tarjeij@ulrik.uio.no (Tarjei Jensen) wrote: >It looks to me that you are fixing something that is not particularly broken in >the first place. The real problem as pointed out before, is that there is no >proper counted string in the Ada standard library. With counted strings you get >the performance you loose when using unbounded strings improperly. Again, I am unclear about your position. Ada already _does_ have a "counted string," called Ada.Strings.Bounded. This type does _not_ allocate heap, and _is_ more efficient then Ada.Strings.Unbounded. Why doesn't this type satisfy your needs? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Heaney Software Development Consultant (818) 985-1271