Re: Self pointer in limited record

[Georg Bauhaus <rm.tsoh+bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>]

On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 09:53 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 23:37:33 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> 
> > Suppose every package is reusable.
> 
> That's the goal.

Why?

> > Then most of us will have
> > lost their jobs as programmers because every problem domain
> > object can be mapped to one of the available reusable packages.
> 
> False implication. Reusing of every package does not imply that you have a
> package for every other thing.

To me, not forcing the reuse idea on every package is a
much better alternative than having to declare unrelated
things in the same declarative part with packages forbidden.
Or, alternatively, being forced to construe some artificial
types for reasons of formal preference only.
The "abstract state machines" kind of package (as opposed
to those packages framing an "abstract data type") do work well
in Ada program without a type parameter; it doesn't carry
any additional information of spectacular use.  The idea:
When a few very specific things are alive only while a
subprogram is executing, then a local package for them is fine
(I think you agreed with this singleton style use). They
have an interface, the have an implementation, with or without 
a type declaration. So why add one?

Why the heck do I have to defend nesting of packages in the first
place? Is it because some popular languages and UML do not
usually nest object abstractions inside  procedural artifacts?
Is it because you do not usually have nesting in C?
Is it because GCC (hence GNAT to some extent) was not built
knowing there would be locally defined things in languages
such as Ada?