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: 103376,64b29dfa2220a59f
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Reserve_Capacity for Unbounded_String?
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 17:32:06 -0400
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wccmyxorup5.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <1185134043.892012.217560@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1185139926 18806 192.74.137.71 (22 Jul 2007 21:32:06
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:32:06 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+qGL/6OJZ81LhVSssTqLrajdTno=
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16537
Date: 2007-07-22T17:32:06-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com> writes:

> Why there is no Reserve_Capacity for Unbounded_String?

Probably for historical reasons.

> Sounds like a natural idea to me.

Yes.

> How to emulate it?
>
> The following seems to work fine:
>
> declare
>    S : Unbounded_String;
>    My_Capacity : constant := 1000;
> begin
>    S := To_Unbounded_String (My_Capacity);

I would write

  To_Unbounded_String (Length => My_Capacity);

to make it clear which To_Unbounded_String you're calling.

>    Delete (Source => S, From => 1, Through => My_Capacity);
>    -- ...
> end;
>
> "Seems to work fine" means that after the above two operations the
> string is logically empty, but the subsequent appends run faster
> (which is actually the original motivation).

How much faster (I'm curious)?

> Is this a reasonable approach if performance is of concern?

I think so.

- Bob