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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c406e0c4a6eb74ed
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!proxad.net!news.cs.univ-paris8.fr!news.zanker.org!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsmm00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.t-online.com!not-for-mail
From: Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: ADA Popularity Discussion Request
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:38:17 +0200
Organization: AdaCL
Message-ID: <1164383.Vq7EPUUJyU@linux1.krischik.com>
References: <49dc98cf.0408110556.18ae7df@posting.google.com>
 <uy8jhjfcq.fsf@obry.org> <2cR0d.1623$IO5.1267@trndny04>
 <uacvw7woi.fsf@obry.org> <n461d.6062$sX2.1584@trndny09>
 <MrNoSpam-F51108.16190313092004@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
 <17sx057ro5jw5$.t2qlaeoxg611$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1095082522.132276@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <18ym85v67zof3$.7oqswzjfgswr.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1095090665.624419@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <68zmgy3b894u.rs67cy6jjfiq$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <ci6cc6$9br$2@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <e749549b.0409152029.21d9a091@posting.google.com>
Reply-To: krischik@users.sourceforge.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Trace: news.t-online.com 1095320557 07 29080 ciWfXBzJ1Oh0zpy 040916 07:42:37
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@t-online.de
X-ID: EGmy74ZeQeQpjcC5SED6si5YkLLkw3mBmK256MSZc1itQwnWr0L4kB
User-Agent: KNode/0.7.7
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3763
Date: 2004-09-16T09:38:17+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Kevin Cline wrote:

> Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message
> news:<ci6cc6$9br$2@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>...
>> Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
>> : This is why I wrote about incorrectness. IF Ada's strings were designed
>> : as a set of related types, then "..." literals could be ones
>> : of/convertible to Unbounded_String and so an initialized ragged array
>> : would be no problem, instead of horrific:
>> : 
>> : type Ragged is array (Integer range <>) of Unbounded_String;
>> : X : constant Ragged :=
>> :    (  To_Unbounded_String ("1"),
>> :       To_Unbounded_String ("12"),
>> :       To_Unbounded_String ("13")
>> :    );
>> 
>> Is it really a good idea to sprinkle source code with unnamed
>> string values? (No matter in what language.) If all of them are
>> isolated in some module(s), where's the problem. Is it an
>> aesthetical problem to have to use Ada's verbosity with strings?

> BTW, the code above will also use memory inefficiently since there
> will be two copies of each string, one constant and one unbounded.

Now that you say it: True. Mind you, if space is a problem, you can always
do it the C way:

String_1  : aliased String = "1";
String_12 : aliased String = "12";
String_13 : aliased String = "13";

type String_Access  is access all String;
type Ragged is array (Integer range <>) of String_Access;
X : constant Ragged :=
    (  String_1'Access,
       String_12'Access,
       String_13'Access
    );
 
Of corse, it does not win a price with being compact code - but it does work
with contrained records as well.

With Regards

Martin
-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
http://www.ada.krischik.com