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=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c469fdacc2f3302b
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!s36g2000prh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Dynamic Variant Record Creation
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <4549b9ca-1cd3-4100-b6f7-8125dd3f3aa4@s36g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
References: <Xns9D3D861E55DA0WarrensBlatherings@188.40.43.213>
	<c3fa9a0f-99c7-4fff-9310-7e4d769065db@s25g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
	<Xns9D3DA2FC9B9BWarrensBlatherings@188.40.43.213>
 <wccljdsnh48.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1268774206 26097 127.0.0.1 (16 Mar 2010 21:16:46
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:16:46 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: s36g2000prh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122;
	posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; WOW64;
	SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; .NET CLR
	3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30618),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:10585
Date: 2010-03-16T14:15:00-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Mar 16, 1:31=A0pm, Robert A Duff <bobd...@shell01.TheWorld.com>
wrote:

> On the other hand, I can imagine some rule based on subtypes,
> where you don't know the discriminant statically, but you know
> statically that it's in a particular subtype that all shares
> the same variant.

Yes, that was discussed in AC-17.  One issue that I don't think was
discussed there, however, was that the same discriminant can govern
more than one variant part, in the case of nested variants, and then
you have issues with discriminated type extensions where an ancestor
type may be a discriminant type constrained by the derived type's
discriminant.  Making sure the rules work in all cases is likely to be
a pain.

                                        -- Adam