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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,165d3eeae8b654b6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Stephen Leake <Stephen.Leake@gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: constant record components in Ada
Date: 1997/06/27
Message-ID: <33B43005.268C@gsfc.nasa.gov>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 253049146
References: <5p100i$pvn@sutton.cs.columbia.edu>
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Reply-To: Stephen.Leake@gsfc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-06-27T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Alexander V. Konstantinou wrote:
> 
> I am trying to obtain in Ada (95) the same functionality of the C++ struct
> declaration :
> 
>         struct map_pair {
>                 const Key_Type first;
>                 Value_Type second;
>         }
> 
> The idea is to provide a record in which the key value is constant, and the
> value type is mutable.  The Ada books I have looked at suggest using
> discriminants.  Unfortunately, discriminants have to be either discrete or
> access types.  In my case Key_Type is a generic parameter and restricting it
> to be a discrete type is too restrictive.  

Why is a discrete type too restrictive? Discrete types include integer
types and enumeration types; what other types are appropriate for keys?
Maybe fixed length strings?

>On the other hand, making the
> discriminant a pointer is in my view an ugly solution since it keeps that
> extra pointer around.
> 
> Any ideas on how to tackle this ?

You could define a limited type to hold the key; then users could not
change it.

> 
> Alexander V. Konstantinou
> --
> Alexander V. Konstantinou              http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~akonstan/
> akonstan@cs.columbia.edu               akonstan@acm.org

-- 
- Stephe