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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.224.137.137 with SMTP id w9mr50538480qat.6.1375133258462; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:27:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.36.103 with SMTP id p7mr577721igj.14.1375133258409; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:27:38 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder02.blueworldhosting.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!cb17no12611qab.0!news-out.google.com!ij2ni119qab.0!nntp.google.com!cb17no12608qab.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:27:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <64498c9c-7add-4b4e-a592-51e12e1aeba6@googlegroups.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=RxNzCgoAAACA5KmgtFQuaU-WaH7rjnAO NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 References: <56e81849-4303-4a78-878c-fff8b57ce64f@googlegroups.com> <64498c9c-7add-4b4e-a592-51e12e1aeba6@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <1cb5731e-2936-42ca-89f3-0ca21776b9c9@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Private function w/ Tagged return-type. From: Adam Beneschan Injection-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 21:27:38 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Received-Bytes: 2473 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:16604 Date: 2013-07-29T14:27:38-07:00 List-Id: 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, s= ince that will make it non-primitive. By the way, now that Ada has aspect clauses, I've toyed with the idea of as= king for a Non_Primitive aspect so that you can declare that a subprogram i= s non-primitive even if the rules in 3.2.3 would make it primitive. This i= ssue has come up multiple times, where a programmer wants to declare a non-= dispatching subprogram (or a subprogram with parameters of two different ta= gged types declared in the same package) but gets defeated by this rule. Y= ou 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=3D>True rather than Primitive=3D>False,= even though the latter looks better, because I'm not sure if there's any o= ther case where the *default* value for an aspect could be true. Also, thi= s is a one-way street; there is no reason I can see to allow a "Primitive= =3D>True" aspect on subprograms that would otherwise be non-primitive by 3.= 2.3.) -- Adam=20 =20