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-Thread: 103376,9fb8e2af320d5b3e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!feeder.news-service.com!216.196.110.148.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!feeder1.cambrium.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!news.netcologne.de!nhp.netcologne.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Subject: Re: Bus error Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de Organization: cbb software GmbH References: <1182954233.788124.17920@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <1182959120.13096.8.camel@kartoffel> <1182964748.689146.52490@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <1183061209.600996.74710@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 10:04:12 +0200 Message-ID: <1g38xbl90n7vk.90kk63xo6xmf.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Jun 2007 10:01:09 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 4f64cf7a.newsspool1.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=]hhR_:oZ__HA@P]\Dic==]BZ:afN4Fo<]lROoRAFl8W>\BH3YBUY3PPEBJNaJDNcfSJ;bb[EFCTGGVUmh?DLK[5LiR>kgB5iBL3P=7k_J X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16333 Date: 2007-06-29T10:01:09+02:00 List-Id: On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:06:49 -0700, Maciej Sobczak wrote: > That's a good news, really. I consider this feature (limited > controlled with unknown discriminant) to be fundamental for correct > handling of external resources and other "interesting" types. It is > really a high time for this feature to get a wider adoption. Hmm, that depends on "interest." Maybe I am wrong, but I think that one objection against Ada 2005 design is that now it is impossible to have types which objects were strictly temporal, i.e. to prevent creation of variables. Consider this: [ type T (<>) is limited private; ] X : T := Factory; -- Was illegal in Ada 95 Foo (Factory); -- That's OK (Ada 95 design was of course flawed too, because you could not do, say: Foo (Factory & Factory); -- Couldn't do this in Ada 95) -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de