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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,61e9062c1f23b9d5
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Reconsidering assignment
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 00:15:46 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1181200546.608422.95280@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
References: <1181165630.012508.55290@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
   <usl94pufq.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 137.138.37.241
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1181200546 4771 127.0.0.1 (7 Jun 2007 07:15:46
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 07:15:46 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <usl94pufq.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
 rv:1.8.0.12) Gecko/20070601 Red Hat/1.5.0.12-0.1.slc3
 Firefox/1.5.0.12,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=137.138.37.241;
   posting-account=Ch8E9Q0AAAA7lJxCsphg7hBNIsMsP4AE
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16086
Date: 2007-06-07T00:15:46-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 7 Cze, 00:52, Ray Blaak <rAYbl...@STRIPCAPStelus.net> wrote:

> > procedure To_Upper(S : in out String);
>
> > Such a procedure is perfectly reasonable.
> > What is not reasonable is this:
>
> > procedure Swap(X, Y : in out String);
>
> I don't see the difference. Consider:
>
>   declare
>     s : String := "123";
>   begin
>     To_Upper(s);
>   end;
>
>   procedure To_Upper(S : in out String)
>   begin
>     s := "12345678";
>   end;

Good point, but the solution is simple: ban it. :-)
You can ban it on the basis that the modifying operation (the s :=
"12345678") operates in (ie. potentially modifies) the constraint-
space in the context where the constraint itself is statically
unknown.

This is OK:

procedure To_Upper(S : in out String) is
begin
  for I in S'First .. S'Last loop
    S(I) := ...;
  end loop;
end;

Above none of the modifying operation (well, there is only one)
operates in the constraint-space of S.

> > procedure Safe_Swap(X, Y : in out String) with X'Length = Y'Length;
>
> Ugh. This is tedious. Seems easier to me to just let the contraint error happen.

The whole Ada is tedious. Let's move to Python, where even the chore
of writing begin/end is eliminated. ;-)


> If you really need this, also have a way to just say "with matching
> constraints" directly, e.g.
>
>   with X'Subtype = Y'Subtype
>
> That way one does not have to get all explicit for other types that have many
> explicit constraints.

Yes, that makes sense.

--
Maciej Sobczak
http://www.msobczak.com/