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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:78d:: with SMTP id l13mr36815809qth.86.1570556302388;
        Tue, 08 Oct 2019 10:38:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7359:: with SMTP id
 l25mr24620824otk.329.1570556302052;
 Tue, 08 Oct 2019 10:38:22 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!o24no9197950qtl.0!news-out.google.com!q23ni377qtl.1!nntp.google.com!o24no9197945qtl.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 10:38:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <qnid8r$ov3$1@dont-email.me>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=93.41.2.250;
 posting-account=9fwclgkAAAD6oQ5usUYhee1l39geVY99
NNTP-Posting-Host: 93.41.2.250
References: <3113a338-c9fd-4c9e-8197-9aca91d2b1d5@googlegroups.com>
 <9d5d30fd-028c-4a5d-9609-e101947e076a@googlegroups.com>
 <qnid8r$ov3$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2e07a635-8251-4fc0-8a9d-7ea8ef957749@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Funny (so to say...) interaction of "not null" and Vectors?
From: mockturtle <framefritti@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2019 17:38:22 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:57266
Date: 2019-10-08T10:38:21-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 6:25:01 PM UTC+2, J-P. Rosen wrote:
> Le 08/10/2019 =C3=A0 18:01, mockturtle a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
> > Answering my own post...  I removed all the "not null" requirements and=
 the exception disappeared...  So, I guess my idea makes sense.
> >=20
> > Nevertheless, if you have any remark, I'll be happy to hear them.
> >=20
> A container has a capacity, which consists of a number of (not yet) used
> elements, in order to decrease the number of reallocations. These extra
> elements are not initialized, which is not allowed per your "not null"
> declaration.
>=20
> --=20
> J-P. Rosen
> Adalog
> 2 rue du Docteur Lombard, 92441 Issy-les-Moulineaux CEDEX
> Tel: +33 1 45 29 21 52, Fax: +33 1 45 29 25 00
> http://www.adalog.fr

Would it make sense to have an aspect that requires that the formal type of=
 a generic package allows for default initialization? (records with not nul=
l access types do not allow that)

I am thinking something like

generic
  type T is private=20
    with Default_Initializable;
package Foo is=20
...
end Foo;

without the Default_Initializable it would not be allowed, say, to create a=
n array of T without explicitly initialize them.=20

That would had saved me few head-scratching...