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: 103376,735c710b5e547bad X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.216.235.32 with SMTP id t32mr1011965weq.7.1343288497381; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 00:41:37 -0700 (PDT) Path: ge7ni70590701wib.0!nntp.google.com!goblin3!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada 2005 puzzle Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:41:28 +0200 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: <1gt5njrqzprkt$.1f9deqqcwyyuq.dlg@40tude.net> References: <1arp60wtxes8h$.1qs6bt732ztgp.dlg@40tude.net> <030cde76-7435-405d-9f12-ac7f730ecab8@googlegroups.com> <1f9q6vk5z2r3t$.1hayo9rmxfwu7$.dlg@40tude.net> <1agfifqlayl3y.1bp09z5i37ewk$.dlg@40tude.net> <1nnq1oprn6h4f.1s5myl3oupdds$.dlg@40tude.net> <57ed1bca-b503-492c-a3b1-012369484e93@googlegroups.com> Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: 9A8bJrx4NhDLcSmbrb6AdA.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 2012-07-26T09:41:28+02:00 List-Id: On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:39:20 -0500, in comp.lang.ada you wrote: > "Dmitry A. Kazakov" 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