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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1116ece181be1aea
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-01 10:36:18 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!wn14feed!wn13feed!wn11feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!rwcrnsc54.POSTED!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <3F7B1076.8060106@comcast.net>
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada?
References: <NGs6b.10770$Pa1.519789@read1.cgocable.net>
 <vhieky4922o.fsf@niu.ifi.uio.no> <ud6dolepw.fsf@nasa.gov>
 <1064527575.648809@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3F739C1D.4030907@attbi.com>
 <uoex8i8i9.fsf@earthlink.net> <na5fnvcqjdvjbutt1s7hu9mhqadjk4jemb@4ax.com>
 <3F78E850.8010401@comcast.net>
 <slrnbniahu.g9.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <3F797748.3000203@noplace.com> <834clb.uan1.ln@skymaster>
 <3F79EF18.7060600@comcast.net>
 <slrnbnjv9h.f3.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <Y1Aeb.10094$kD3.173@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.34.139.183
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-Trace: rwcrnsc54 1065029778 24.34.139.183 (Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:36:18 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:36:18 GMT
Organization: Comcast Online
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:36:18 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:74
Date: 2003-10-01T17:36:18+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Frank J. Lhota wrote:

> This approach would be easier to use, at the cost of some additional
> constraints on the implementers. I know of no implementation of
> Strings.Bounded, however, that could not easily be adapted to this scheme.

But see my previous message.  Such a type is useless for ragged arrays. 
  You can create ragged arrays in Ada using Bounded_String or 
Unbounded_String, but doing so requires that there is no discriminant 
for the outer type.

-- 
                                                     Robert I. Eachus

"Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the 
goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, 
down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or 
down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair 
of an old motorcycle."  -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle 
Maintenance by Robert Pirsig