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: 103376,9fb8e2af320d5b3e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Maciej Sobczak Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Bus error Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:05:48 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <1183104348.439715.173430@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> References: <1182954233.788124.17920@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <1182959120.13096.8.camel@kartoffel> <1182964748.689146.52490@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <1183061209.600996.74710@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 137.138.37.241 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1183104348 5171 127.0.0.1 (29 Jun 2007 08:05:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:05:48 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: 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: q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=137.138.37.241; posting-account=Ch8E9Q0AAAA7lJxCsphg7hBNIsMsP4AE Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16334 Date: 2007-06-29T01:05:48-07:00 List-Id: On 28 Cze, 23:19, Robert A Duff wrote: > >> No. You can have an untagged private type whose full type is tagged. > > > You mean - untagged *public*, I suppose? > > Yeah, the terminology is confusing. Yes, I meant "untagged public view". If any such thing exists. :-) > I mean: > > package P is > type T is limited private; > private > type T is tagged limited ...; > end P; > > or: > > with Ada.Finalization; use Ada; > package P is > type T is limited private; > private > type T is new Finalization.Limited_Controlled with ...; > end P; Yes, or even stricter: with Ada.Finalization; use Ada; package P is type T (<>) is limited private; private type T is new Finalization.Limited_Controlled with ...; end P; which prevents uninitialized objects. > Most AdaCore folks do not read comp.lang.ada at all. Interesting. Do they have so many official user complaints to read that they don't have any time left? :-) Hey, I can afford this joke, if they don't read it, right? > And AdaCore certainly does not go looking for GNAT bugs on > comp.lang.ada. If you want a bug fixed, you have to send > an official bug report. And if you want it fixed fast, > or want AdaCore to answer your questions, you have to spend > money. This is short-sighted. What if I'm not *yet* an Ada user, but just contemplate this possibility and take into account *everything*, including the consistency of Ada community? By neglecting c.l.a. they're risking to lose a potential customer(s). > > I consider this feature (limited > > controlled with unknown discriminant) to be fundamental for correct > > handling of external resources and other "interesting" types. It is > > really a high time for this feature to get a wider adoption. > > Right, but it's the Ada 2005 build-in-place function return stuff that > makes these really useful. Yes. Interestingly, it works fine with my compiler. I just consider the aggregate to be more concise in simpler cases. > The bug we're talking about (assuming it > really is the same bug that I fixed, which I can't promise) was a > nasty interaction between build-in-place functions and controlled > types. Controlled types are messy. -- Maciej Sobczak http://www.msobczak.com/