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: 103376,54c513170bafd693 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert A Duff Subject: Re: Desirability of C++ Date: 2000/05/03 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 618715393 Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) References: <390DEC7F.9429C82C@online.no> <390E2A20.B647D0D6@maths.unine.ch> <8em8mb$evd$1@wanadoo.fr> <390EEF24.BD36AA24@maths.unine.ch> <8eonmi$e4q$2@wanadoo.fr> Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-05-03T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "Jean-Pierre Rosen" writes: > In this example, the question is whether this very simple functionnality was > worth presenting a fourth variation of strings. Well, it wouldn't have been a *fourth* one. If we had chosen to do it your way, it would have been *instead* of the bounded strings package we ended up with. Therefore, it would not have added complexity. The issue was purely whether assignment should fail at run time (as in your version) versus prevented at compile time (the RM version) -- that issue, traded off against the extra annoyance of having to instantiate the thing all over the place. All in all, I think your package is better than the RM one, despite the fact that it's less safe. - Bob