Re: ADA Popularity Discussion Request

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Martin Krischik" <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message
news:2177491.OlAk1RxoCA@linux1.krischik.com...
> Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>
> > Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> >
> > : 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
> > :    );
> >
> > for constants,
> >
> >    X: constant Ragged :=
> >     ( new String'("1"),
> >     ...
> >
> > does just as well, the allocations are performed by the compiler,
> > not at run time :-)
>
> Really! I did not know that! Where does it say in the RM - or is a
compiler
> dependent optimisation.

The standard really couldn't say it; we only define the semantics of the
operation, not the exact code that it uses. That said, there was an
intention by the Ada 95 design team that this be done, and I think that
there is an AARM note to that effect. So it isn't surprises that
implementers would make this optimization. (We didn't do it in Janus/Ada,
simply because it didn't seem worth the work -- we hadn't seen any real
usage of it. If customers had asked for it, we would have done it, of
course.)

                     Randy.