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 10.107.181.20 with SMTP id e20mr5658676iof.43.1520909466353; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:51:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.157.46.5 with SMTP id q5mr586709otb.10.1520909466223; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:51:06 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!e10-v6no1475978itf.0!news-out.google.com!h73-v6ni894itb.0!nntp.google.com!r195no1481257itc.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:51:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=47.185.233.194; posting-account=zwxLlwoAAAChLBU7oraRzNDnqQYkYbpo NNTP-Posting-Host: 47.185.233.194 References: <4cf2a76e-626d-4ead-ae8a-dccdef41b283@googlegroups.com> <2153155f-2778-421f-97cb-4d229fb9355b@googlegroups.com> <290ddbd1-3aa1-4238-8737-51d8090af7d3@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <40461a81-a074-4b15-8cdb-d977337a84b7@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: anonymous records as tuples From: "Dan'l Miller" Injection-Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 02:51:06 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Received-Bytes: 2773 X-Received-Body-CRC: 3324492333 Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:50952 Date: 2018-03-12T19:51:05-07:00 List-Id: Randy Brukardt wrote: > And there are so many Ada=20 > constructs which assume a name is handy (type conversion, generic=20 > instantiation, and so on) that anonymous types tend to always have an=20 > incomplete set of capabilities. Just to play devil's advocate (for a school of thought that I don't myself = subscribe to regarding the current fad of tuples & lambdas), in addition to= Ada's current category of =E2=80=A2identifier=E2=80=A2-based naming, there= does exist another kind of naming: =E2=80=A2=E2=80=A2reflection-based dri= ll-down=E2=80=A2=E2=80=A2. Instead of full-fledged anonymity, the de facto= name of a pseudo-anonymous type in some future version of Ada could be som= ething to the effect of: subroutine X's return type, such as with ' syntax= as reflection (e.g., 'ReturnType). (I am not sure that this extends well = to anonymous functions or anonymous procedures as lambda-expressions in Ada= , because I don't see an easy way to =E2=80=98find=E2=80=99 a lambda-expres= sion that lacks a name via reflection.) It would seem that at least some o= f Ada's language-defined ' attributes drill down to entities that have no i= dentifier name, e.g., 'Tag and 'Class, so there is some stunted degree of e= mbrace of using reflection drill-down as a de facto name for entities that = lack identifier-names.