Re: Why no Ada.Wide_Directories?

["Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

Le Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:43:22 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:

> Note that it was not about multiple inheritance. Yannick suggested that
> making types like Boolean, String, Integer etc to have classes and
> primitive operations would mean a performance loss. That is wrong.
I exactly said this would require program analysis as a whole, at the cost  
of separate compilation, and thus also at the cost of dropping any kind of  
library, either shared or static. If any type is potentially the root of a  
class, then you have to avoid dynamic dispatching every where possible,  
and to do so, you need global analysis. If you don't, you get the direct  
performance issues, typical of interpreted languages.

But I may be wrong if I am not replying to what you had in mind (not sure  
anymore I understand the topic).

-- 
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.”  [Epigrams on  
Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [Idem]
Java: Write once, Never revisit