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-Thread: 103376,e219d94b946dfc26 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada.Command_Line and wildcards References: <45dcaed8_6@news.bluewin.ch> <1172132169.423514.271890@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com> <45E1B7AA.30804@obry.net> <1dpvltpykld8r$.1rn2ewhc0itjt$.dlg@40tude.net> <1s55dlqncctpm$.zs9aloiw8j2l$.dlg@40tude.net> <1172509912.655684.114870@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com> <1172592793.6285.13.camel@localhost> <1172594344.6285.18.camel@localhost> From: Markus E Leypold Organization: N/A Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 18:56:31 +0100 Message-ID: User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) Cancel-Lock: sha1:zb86ZKJzeJzZI0hsJGo78+wU8LA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.246.30 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1172598638 88.72.246.30 (27 Feb 2007 18:50:38 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!130.59.10.21.MISMATCH!kanaga.switch.ch!switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:9579 Date: 2007-02-27T18:56:31+01:00 List-Id: Georg Bauhaus writes: > On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 17:19 +0100, Markus E Leypold wrote: >> Georg Bauhaus writes: >> >> > On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 18:34 +0100, Markus E Leypold wrote: >> >> "Hyman Rosen" writes: >> >> >> >> > On Feb 26, 3:44 am, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> Further, why do you presume that heap is larger than stack? >> >> >> AFAIK, nothing in RM requires or implies that. >> >> > >> >> > Past experience. If that's not the case for some implementation then >> >> > fine, but I suspect it's more often the case then not. I'm pretty sure >> >> > we've seen newbie examples on the newsgroup where they create >> >> > unconstrained objects (is that the right term?) on the stack and then >> >> > wonder why their program doesn't work. >> >> >> >> I'm also pretty sure that in most of those cases creating them on the >> >> heap wouldn't work either. >> >> > Really, isn't this an issue of how to best use GNAT >> > for Ada programs when they have potentially large objects. >> >> Yes, that's because I said "in most of those cases". _Those_ cases. > > But in most of those cases creating the array on the heap explicitly > _has_ worked. > Or am I missing something? I recall array sizes of some 10M. Then you remember other cases. No problem. The case I have been referring to -- an array where the upper bound in the unconstraint case would have been Positive'Last -- it would not have worked to allocate on the heap. And that seems to be mistake made most frequently by beginners (I think we had the word beginner somehwere in this thread), but YMMV. I just find it equivalent to the reading of tea leafes to assume this: >> >> >> AFAIK, nothing in RM requires or implies that. >> >> > >> >> > Past experience. If that's not the case for some implementation then >> >> > fine, but I suspect it's more often the case then not. I'm pretty sure >> >> > we've seen newbie examples on the newsgroup where they create >> >> > unconstrained objects (is that the right term?) on the stack and then >> >> > wonder why their program doesn't work. a conclusion that is still lacking the last step too, since he assumed that it worked when allocating on the heap (but doesn't say so). Regards -- Markus