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
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx05.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!usenet-fr.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2013 13:51:01 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Gnat 2013 is out!
References: <ko500n$a4v$1@dont-email.me> <lyhahl96b5.fsf@pushface.org>
 <lyd2s99324.fsf@pushface.org> <ko603g$dde$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <32d94173-533a-471e-95a0-abb73a6cdcc2@googlegroups.com>
 <ko8ao8$55i$1@loke.gir.dk> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1305311319150.13043@debian>
 <kob6vc$iil$1@loke.gir.dk>
In-Reply-To: <kob6vc$iil$1@loke.gir.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <51a9e025$0$9521$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 01 Jun 2013 13:51:01 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 7fcd77c0.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=7[cLeZjbBSB74okIm;?DS@ic==]BZ:afN4Fo<]lROoRAnkgeX?EC@@@W`=H1dd=2]APCY\c7>ejVHQ[LT9TVU7DDf<WZ6`QeG:D
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:15689
Date: 2013-06-01T13:51:01+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 01.06.13 00:07, Randy Brukardt wrote:

> Unless the syntax makes it pretty obvious that this is a dummy, discarded
> parameter, this idea is going nowhere. (And it might very well go nowhere
> even if the syntax is perfect.)

Can you perhaps employ the new subpools mechanism? To provide
constraints for an anonymous, "boxed object", we'd write

    My_Proc (Obj1, Obj2, Result => <> String'(1..80 => <>));


Then, if __ stands for a subpool known only to the compiler
such as, ahem, the stack, the expansion is the impossible

    My_Proc (Obj1, Obj2, Result => (new(__) String'(1..80 => <>)).all);