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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.224.200.202 with SMTP id ex10mr14142613qab.8.1370271128254; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 07:52:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.83.100 with SMTP id p4mr1573537igy.9.1370271128052; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 07:52:08 -0700 (PDT) Path: border1.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news2.euro.net!209.197.12.246.MISMATCH!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.16.185.11.MISMATCH!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!ch1no551895qab.0!news-out.google.com!y6ni654qax.0!nntp.google.com!ch1no551890qab.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 07:52:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <51a9e025$0$9521$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 References: <32d94173-533a-471e-95a0-abb73a6cdcc2@googlegroups.com> <51a9e025$0$9521$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <33025e6c-b893-4c66-98f6-0fb469016583@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Gnat 2013 is out! From: Adam Beneschan Injection-Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 14:52:08 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Received-Bytes: 2174 Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:181786 Date: 2013-06-03T07:52:07-07:00 List-Id: On Saturday, June 1, 2013 4:51:01 AM UTC-7, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > On 01.06.13 00:07, Randy Brukardt wrote: > > > Unless the syntax makes it pretty obvious that this is a dummy, discarded > > parameter, this idea is going nowhere. (And it might very well go nowhere > > even if the syntax is perfect.) > > Can you perhaps employ the new subpools mechanism? To provide > constraints for an anonymous, "boxed object", we'd write > > My_Proc (Obj1, Obj2, Result => <> String'(1..80 => <>)); > > Then, if __ stands for a subpool known only to the compiler > such as, ahem, the stack, the expansion is the impossible > > My_Proc (Obj1, Obj2, Result => (new(__) String'(1..80 => <>)).all); I'm beginning to regret opening this subject up. -- Adam