Re: Constant record components

["ME" <abcdefg@nonodock.net>]

"Georg Bauhaus" <bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message 
news:1152263715.5568.1.camel@localhost...
> 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?
The record has no discriminants
>
>>   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.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>