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-Google-Thread: 103376,a3736685ef876ab2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: braver <deliverable@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: OO Style with Ada Containers
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:52:29 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <2ea3d2c9-6f8e-45c2-a605-8d919d7691e4@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
References: <1195082906.420079.195000@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
	<1195084214.480299.13970@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
 <1195084752.840598.174460@v65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
	<1195086265.070953.93180@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
 <u1wandlal.fsf@earthlink.net>
	<2e37536e-55fb-42d5-a073-10b47cc31128@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
	<47475850.2080208@obry.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.30.231.120
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1195858349 4017 127.0.0.1 (23 Nov 2007 22:52:29
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 22:52:29 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=85.30.231.120;
	posting-account=V2cESwoAAACnN32CFvmyu4DCs-heiisG
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Opera/9.24 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X; U;
	en),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Content-Disposition: inline
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18594
Date: 2007-11-23T14:52:29-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Nov 24, 1:46 am, Pascal Obry <pas...@obry.net> wrote:
> braver a =E9crit :
>
> > Very ineteresting -- Matt, can you pls elucidate these idioms below?
>
> > On Nov 19, 5:24 am, Matthew Heaney <matthewjhea...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >>    type Scanner (<>) is tagged limited private;
>
> > What does (<>) say here -- that the type is unconstrained?
>
> Yes. Scanner has a privately defined discriminant. So the public view of
> Scanner must be declared unconstrained.
>
> >> private
>
> >>    type Handle (S : not null access Scanner) is limited null record;
>
> >>    type Scanner (Last : Natural) is tagged limited record
> >>       H          : Handle (Scanner'Access);
> >>       Line       : String (1 .. Last);
> >>       Word_First : Positive;
> >>       Word_Last  : Natural;
> >>    end record;
>
> > What's the logic behind the definition and usage of the Handle H
> > throughout?
>
> It is for gaining write access to function in parameter. A simpler
> solution is:
>
>     type Scanner (Last : Natural) is tagged limited record
>        Self       : access Scanner :=3D Scanner'Unchecked_Access;
>        Line       : String (1 .. Last);
>        Word_First : Positive;
>        Word_Last  : Natural;
>     end record;

Ah.  Didn't see H assigned -- in this case, Scanner'Access with the
type name means the address of the actual parent type record instance?

So basically to simplify even further, we'd just have procedures with
honest in out parameters?

Cheers,
Alexy