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: 103376,34d47d048b177d0b,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Tom Moran <tmoran@bix.com>
Subject: limited/non-limited in Ada95
Date: 1997/10/13
Message-ID: <3442C2A3.3781@bix.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 280227194
Organization: InterNex Information Services 1-800-595-3333
Reply-To: TMoran@bix.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-10-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In Ada 83 there was always an argument against using 'limited' because
it would make anything anything using that type also limited.  But in
Ada 95 with tagged types we have the same problem in reverse: if a
tagged type is non-limited then all its descendants are non-limited and
some important capabilities are only available to limited types.  Has
anyone else found this to be a problem, and do you have any good
solutions?