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: 103376,75ffc1f081ec10e3
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!tiscali!newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!proxad.net!proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!news.arcor.de!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Constant record components
From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>
In-Reply-To: <12arsrtbe8flpf8@corp.supernews.com>
References: <12ad8guf3sg1o0d@corp.supernews.com>
	 <1loq7utmaxvll$.yqsxj5edzqgv.dlg@40tude.net>
	 <12afs64kh432q0e@corp.supernews.com>
	 <t7hmlpeqyass.1fjxzy2pl8z82$.dlg@40tude.net>
	 <12aihj2lrjqpc3a@corp.supernews.com>
	 <7bednaJHX_FTMDTZnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@megapath.net>
	 <12ak5urrrj6d756@corp.supernews.com>
	 <XeydnRLp9_6KqDHZnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@megapath.net>
	 <p6fi8e.de4.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
	 <ObSdnQYngMQKEzDZnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@megapath.net>
	 <12arsrtbe8flpf8@corp.supernews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: #
Message-ID: <1152263715.5568.1.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 11:15:16 +0200
NNTP-Posting-Date: 07 Jul 2006 11:13:01 MEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 8a628a76.newsread2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=6RNcV6@8<MDRG:gi]CKmZGQ5U85hF6f;DjW\KbG]kaMHGSi?jHD8GO@TCLc]<C]3@BUUng9_FXZ=C>:=P9Ihe`BH@Z?dZ]MOidE
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5549
Date: 2006-07-07T11:13:01+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 22:39 -0700, ME wrote:
> What I am looking for is a way to read in a values from a file ,assign them 
> once to  records and disallow any future assignment i.e. these "constant 
> parts of the records represent a structure that I don't want to ever change 
> during the life of the program (write once and read only afterwards).

Wouldn't it be an option to declare the public view
of the to-be-constant record subtype limited?

>   It 
> would be similar to a constant declaration but inside of a record. I don't 
> think that it is disgusting at all.
> "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote in message 
> news:ObSdnQYngMQKEzDZnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@megapath.net...
> > "Jean-Pierre Rosen" <rosen@adalog.fr> wrote in message
> > news:p6fi8e.de4.ln@hunter.axlog.fr...
> >> Randy Brukardt a crit :
> >> >
> >> > I can say that the notion that something declared "constant" could in
> > fact
> >> > be assigned to in some scope is rather disgusting. I don't think it
> > would
> >> > fly.
> >> >
> >> Hmmm.... Initialization of controlled constants?
> >
> > After initialization, of course. (Constants are assign-once, logically.
> > Assign-never would be a problem, because they'd have no value at all in 
> > that
> > case!) And similarly, before finalization (although it shouldn't really be
> > necessary to clear the finalized result -- but it is often done, and
> > harmless to do).
> >
> > Still, allowing the assignment of a name that is declared to be a constant
> > view at some point between initialization and finalization would be a 
> > nasty
> > change to the language. (Note that it might be possible to assign via a
> > different name; that's a different issue -- and one that is usually a
> > programming error.) Otherwise, "constant" would essentially be
> > meaningless -- bringing us back to the beginning; if it doesn't mean
> > anything, why bother with it at all?
> >
> >                                    Randy.
> >
> > 
> 
>