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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1ff5003422436e4 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-27 03:19:45 PST Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!source.asset.com!source.asset.com!not-for-mail From: bishopm@source.asset.com (Michael M. Bishop) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Easily-Read C++? Date: 21 Oct 1994 23:10:23 -0400 Organization: Asset Source for Software Engineering Technology Message-ID: <389vqv$i6n@source.asset.com> References: <3719k1$11gt@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 530tr0 Date: 1994-10-21T23:10:23-04:00 List-Id: In article , Thomas M. Breuel wrote: >That is indeed a problem in some situations, but it is not related to >declaration syntax. On the other hand, real-world users will probably >not accept a language that doesn't provide some equivalent of C's >plain arrays: the overhead of carrying bounds information around at >runtime is sometimes unacceptable. You don't have to carry Ada array bounds information around at run-time. You can use the pragma Suppress to remove those checks from the generated object code. In fact, I believe that this is often done in real-world applications. When building the system for the production environment, the pragma is added. I know that this is nitpicking given the context of this thread, but this is what I do when I have nothing of substance to add to the conversation :-). -- | Mike Bishop | The opinions expressed here reflect | | bishopm@source.asset.com | those of this station, its management, | | Member: Team Ada | and the entire world. |