Re: anonymous aggregates?

[Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

On 01.09.12 00:37, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "Stephen Leake" <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote in message
> news:85mx1bwec4.fsf@stephe-leake.org...
> ...
>> If we introduce the notion of "anonymous aggregates" (styled after
>> "anonymous arrays"), we could do this:
>
> I'd be more likely to call this idea an "anonymous record" as that is the
> obvious counterpart to "anonymous array".
>
> declare
>      function Foo return
>         record
>            A : Integer;
>            B : Float;
>          end record
>      is begin
>          return
>              (A => 1,
>               B => 2.0);
>      end Foo;
>
> (As a side-benefit, there'd be less griping about not repeating the name in
> a record declaration. ;-)

Wouldn't we be passing objects of anonymous_type_1 that right now
cannot be assigned to anything of anonymous_type_2?
At least not without resorting to types being the same if they
happen use the same structure (and component names?), thus giving up
Ada's notion of type equivalence.