Re: Ada 2005 puzzle

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:39:20 -0500, in comp.lang.ada you wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message 
> news:e3lpckmcck22$.eqnl4sn38ezy$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 21:23:50 -0700 (PDT), Adam Beneschan wrote:
> ...
>> I repeat it again. It is not about any concrete example. It is about the
>> principle that constructing function would allow writing an aggregate for 
>> a derived type.
> 
> Fine. Then report the *principle* to Ada-Comment, along with some examples 
> where it doesn't work. As I said, we're not spending our time trolling for 
> language bugs -- someone has to report them. And I'm not doing it for other 
> anymore. If you don't care enough to report things to Ada-Comment, then we 
> (the ARG) shouldn't care enough to look at changing them. We've got plenty 
> of hard problems to work on as it is (and I'm sure will get more).

Well, no. Because:

1. You have already answered my question. To paraphrase the answer: limited
objects cannot be constructed using that "junk", it was not intended for
this.

2. I actually want the "junk" removed from the language and consider
anybody's work on extending or implementing it as wasting resources.
Especially because I doubt very much that the goal could be achieved.

As a side note. It would be nice if the next Ada Rationale would have a
chapter, kind of "it is not what you think", warning Ada programmers
against attempts to use the "junk" for the purpose of limited object
factories and suggesting some working patterns instead.

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