Re: Private function w/ Tagged return-type.

[Adam Beneschan <adambeneschan@aol.com>]

On Monday, July 29, 2013 2:20:24 PM UTC-7, I wrote:

> You can put your Input function in a nested package to avoid the error, since that will make it non-primitive.

By the way, now that Ada has aspect clauses, I've toyed with the idea of asking for a Non_Primitive aspect so that you can declare that a subprogram is non-primitive even if the rules in 3.2.3 would make it primitive.  This issue has come up multiple times, where a programmer wants to declare a non-dispatching subprogram (or a subprogram with parameters of two different tagged types declared in the same package) but gets defeated by this rule.  You can get around this by nesting it in a subpackage, but this seems like a kludge that shouldn't be necessary any more if an aspect clause were added.  (Also, I'd ask for Non_Primitive=>True rather than Primitive=>False, even though the latter looks better, because I'm not sure if there's any other case where the *default* value for an aspect could be true.  Also, this is a one-way street; there is no reason I can see to allow a "Primitive=>True" aspect on subprograms that would otherwise be non-primitive by 3.2.3.)

                                 -- Adam