Re: Textedit and txt

[Laurent <daemon2@internet.lu>]

On Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 11:23:36 PM UTC+2, Randy Brukardt wrote:

Hi

I tried to put that package together but I get this error on the second function:

        14:4 no visible subprogram matches the specification for "+"
        14:4 missing specification for "Drop"


with Ada.Strings.Bounded;

package Common_Defs is

   V_String_Length  : constant :=  256;

   package V_String is new
     Ada.Strings.Bounded.Generic_Bounded_Length (V_String_Length);

   function "+" (Right : V_String.Bounded_String) return String
   renames
     V_String.To_String;

   function "+" (Right : String) return V_String.Bounded_String
   ^----- error
   renames
     V_String.To_Bounded_String;

end Common_Defs;

I have no idea what the compiler is complaining about.

> Note that some people hate using "+" this way, because they think it has 
> something to do with numerics. We really should have something non-specific 
> (say an operator "#"), but the ARG is always split between people that think 
> we already have such an operator ("+") and thus we don't need another one 
> and those that are repulsed by using "+" this way. (Getting these put into 
> the packages themselves failed for similar reasons. Grumble.)

Well if it makes life easier why not use it. And if someone does't like to use a '+' then take something else, as long as you remember what it is doing.

>I'd prefer a completely different design for both of these packages, so we could add some >mechanism to allow direct conversions, but that's likely too radical.) 

Why would that be too radical?

Thanks

Laurent