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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,5ebeef2944e4167d
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.180.107.167 with SMTP id hd7mr1053056wib.0.1346980966961;
        Thu, 06 Sep 2012 18:22:46 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 q11ni5513255wiw.1!nntp.google.com!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!85.12.40.138.MISMATCH!xlned.com!feeder5.xlned.com!border-1.ams.xsnews.nl!border4.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!feed.xsnews.nl!border-2.ams.xsnews.nl!takemy.news.telefonica.de!telefonica.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2012 11:57:48 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: anonymous aggregates?
References: <85mx1bwec4.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <k1rec3$68q$1@munin.nbi.dk>
In-Reply-To: <k1rec3$68q$1@munin.nbi.dk>
Message-ID: <5041dc1d$0$6578$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 01 Sep 2012 11:57:49 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 317bcf44.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=3;^=m^cXinGA<A_d>@P]\DMcF=Q^Z^V3H4Fo<]lROoRA8kF<OcfhCOKIQ>WRE0Pj]@PCY\c7>ejVHHUh9f5\=h5OkkP[\AbIaFK
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-09-01T11:57:49+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.