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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: operation can be dispatching in only one type
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 14:39:30 +0100
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <11das66l3vhic$.1stkau3dqp6ld.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <b4aee46c-7dbb-4906-99c5-f4f8e9876fc6@googlegroups.com>
 <n2viun$sb0$1@dont-email.me>
 <04eb6626-644b-4b16-a329-c35659a9fbe2@googlegroups.com>
 <n325f8$kq0$1@dont-email.me> <dbjve4F188rU1@mid.individual.net>
 <n32lqq$sqm$1@dont-email.me> <1ephv5ugr5mib$.9ehadf3dddct$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <c3827fcd-6b2e-4c64-8901-1e91030f1c84@googlegroups.com>
 <1nf8wc05tjtvf$.1ctjb9hsr0qsp.dlg@40tude.net>
 <8132c558-aec2-41f4-8024-4a75a2d497ae@googlegroups.com>
 <17c8a7kqoxvff.aa1raqev6xlu$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <75a4c7be-391d-4e5d-9e6e-23607132c943@googlegroups.com>
 <n377k1$36j$1@dont-email.me>
 <343b78d1-c1ba-40d3-af80-e18de45f2e3d@googlegroups.com>
 <n37sup$s1k$1@dont-email.me> <wkw9b1sq4mg0.14cvqyjh3bit8.dlg@40tude.net>
 <n39jt9$292$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: p9a8jKAGz0rpkSSbWxF1gQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:28558
Date: 2015-11-27T14:39:30+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:58:32 +0100, J-P. Rosen wrote:

> Le 27/11/2015 09:37, Dmitry A. Kazakov a écrit :
>>> That's what is called syntactic sugar. (Sugar is pleasant, isn't it? But
>>> > not in my coffee, no thanks ;-) )
>> Why do you use record types at all? It surely is just sugar dust put on a
>> memory chunk. You certainly could declare Get and Set operations to extract
>> and set members at the specified memory offsets. No?
> 1) For types not exported by packages
> 2) For types exported by packages where you want the structure to be
> public, like information returned by queries. You don't always need to
> hide information.

But when I need I must be able to do it.

> And when a construct provides higher abstraction level, it is NOT
> syntactic sugar. A record provides typing and controls over raw memory.

q.e.d.

1. Raw memory is an implementation detail. A record could provide all that
for a lot of things beyond raw memory.

2. What makes you think that the compiler always knows better how to
control raw memory?

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de