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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1116ece181be1aea
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-06 05:15:56 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-alcarin.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail
From: Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada?
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 14:25:11 +0200
Message-ID: <r5n2ov4v4sso7hm065gp9b0asnf0umifvh@4ax.com>
References: <834clb.uan1.ln@skymaster> <3F79EF18.7060600@comcast.net>
 <slrnbnjv9h.f3.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <Y1Aeb.10094$kD3.173@nwrdny03.gnilink.net> <3F7B1076.8060106@comcast.net>
 <5mknnv4u96qqudrt4bd8n4t1cljp2fjlp8@4ax.com> <3F7C810E.7070100@comcast.net>
 <blklut$dala6$2@ID-77047.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <3G2dnS15r8mycOCiXTWJkA@gbronline.com>
 <blm0au$dkoad$2@ID-77047.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <5qWdnWQBj-AB9-KiU-KYuA@gbronline.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-alcarin.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.111)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1065442554 15867927 212.79.194.111 (16 [77047])
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:302
Date: 2003-10-06T14:25:11+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 19:49:44 -0500, Wes Groleau
<groleau@freeshell.org> wrote:

>Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> Observe that this disgusting construction does not serve the purpose,
>> because it allocates the memory for the worst case.
>
>Of course it does.  I understand you want constrained
>sizes that are not the same,

No, I want them same:

type Array_Of_Same_Strings (Length : Positive) is
   array (Integer range <>) of
      String (1..Length);

Note, that Bounded_String do have *same* sizes [if their maximal
length is same]. If their design were non-generic:

type Bounded_String (Max_Length : Positive) is record ... end record;

then with array discriminants one could have quasi-ragged arrays,
which are *not* in fact ragged:

type  Array_Of_Varying_Strings  (Max_Length : Positive) is
   array (Integer range <>) of
      Bounded_String (Max_Length); 

>but if you are willing
>to make the type have unconstrained elements, nothing
>prevents you from putting contrained ones into those slots.
>
>To minimize memory usage in a ragged array, access types
>work quite well and do not add significant complexity.
>Make them controlled if you're worried about cleanup.

Access types are inherently bad. After all this solution exists since
K&R C. If you want to say that there are work-arounds odious to
different grades. Yes, they are.

---
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de