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: 103376,81bb2ce65a3240c3
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.197.193 with SMTP id iw1mr7481721pbc.0.1335485974107;
        Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:19:34 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 r9ni102415pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: sbelmont700@gmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What would you like in Ada202X?
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:18:02 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <13849842.838.1335485882969.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbai3>
References: <3637793.35.1335340026327.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfi5>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.53.78.59
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1335485973 29104 127.0.0.1 (27 Apr 2012 00:19:33
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:19:33 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <3637793.35.1335340026327.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfi5>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=206.53.78.59;
 posting-account=ShYTIAoAAABytvcS76ZrG9GdaV-nXYKy
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2012-04-26T17:18:02-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


+1 for proper constructors and destructors.  Or, at the very least, a way t=
o inhibit uninitialized private record types (type T is not null record ...=
?).  Apart from finally providing safe initialization, it could always lead=
 the way for constant record elements...

It would certainly be nice to include the requisite 'auto' and 'shared' acc=
ess types in the standard library, but I suppose this would detract from th=
e verisimilitude that access types are not needed for OOP (which is simply =
just not the case).

And despite being a minor issue, I really wish they would create a generic =
formal type for pool-specific access types only (type T_Ptr is not access a=
ll T?).  It offends my delicate sensitivities that you can instantiate Unch=
ecked_Deallocation for a general access type, because that's a compile time=
 error.

And for the love of all that is holy, remove null procedures, or at least s=
tandardize a pragma to do so.  The fact that Ada automates the fudging and =
faking of an operation that is not applicable for a type is anathema to eve=
rything the language has stood for since 1983.  A procedure Do_Something th=
at does not do something is the most awful, unabashed example of bad design=
 that could possibly exist....and the language has constructs to expedite i=
t?!