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
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Initialization and Finalization of limited object "returned" by a
  function
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <ed41ec55-1c33-4ea0-95db-01a89103d70a@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
 <41b794ec-26b0-485e-a959-580a5b877a3b@f15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
 <8e09c20d-172e-42a2-b2ff-994863893523@h12g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
 <wcczl3fgxum.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <ff4735cf-c7d7-420d-b17d-a53576e8a5d5@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
 <wccocju1o56.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <jk97b2c81itt$.1h9s6uejsnxcu.dlg@40tude.net>
 <C79C7B26.136261%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:23:27 +0100
Message-ID: <1bfsjs28l95yb.az4k57hr668y$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Feb 2010 11:23:19 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 22ba3cce.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=d0R_QI6h1Bn:i=48;n?Z:`McF=Q^Z^V3h4Fo<]lROoRa8kF<OcfhCOkd8bH9kBC;ol[6LHn;2LCVn[<mhadbfdUkPJaWmP1Z^LgHOU=^fLje<e
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9211
Date: 2010-02-14T11:23:19+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 15:52:06 +0000, (see below) wrote:

> On 13/02/2010 09:54, in article jk97b2c81itt$.1h9s6uejsnxcu.dlg@40tude.net,
> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:15:17 -0500, Robert A Duff wrote:
>> 
>>> "Hibou57 (Yannick Duch�ne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> writes:
>>> 
>>>> On 12 f�v, 00:24, Robert A Duff <bobd...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>>>> Well, I don't find it "graceful" that single-element positional
>>>>> aggregates are not allowed. �And zero-element ones. �I think
>>>>> it's just bad language design.
>>>> It seems you are suggesting the ambiguity should be resolved
>>>> semantically. Why not :)
>>> 
>>> No, it should be syntactic.  And it should be more obvious
>>> than counting the number of expressions between "(" and ")".
>>> 
>>> Aggregates should use "[" and "]", so there's no confusion.
>> 
>> Nope, the mathematical notation for a tuple is as in Ada (a,b,c,...), so
>> should it be. I see no problem in having it ambiguous (overloaded).
> 
> <a,b,c, ...>, surely?

Hmm, I am not sure if I ever saw that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuple

BTW, if it were my choice, I would allow user-defined aggregates to take
any paired brackets (), [], {} and, maybe <>.

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