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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9f24c9ad3717de45
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Hibou57 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Online Ada Tutorials
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:23:56 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <5775c6e1-d8a9-455f-b915-10032fab7950@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
References: <47b9666a$0$28878$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net>
	<6c2e7cf5-0c7c-4bc1-a259-1160938bf501@c33g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
	<fpcu39$q5l$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.66.190.140
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1203441836 21440 127.0.0.1 (19 Feb 2008 17:23:56
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:23:56 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.66.190.140;
	posting-account=vrfdLAoAAAAauX_3XwyXEwXCWN3A1l8D
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Opera/9.23 (Windows NT 5.1; U; fr),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19891
Date: 2008-02-19T09:23:56-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>From one of the previously document from AdaIC, I look like to point a
special point addressed in this document :
-> http://www.adaic.com/standards/05rat/html/Rat-1-3-2.html

Chance is that this will be one of the biggest difference for a lot of
people, and this also especially important for beginners, beceause the
uniformaty of the new syntax allowed by Ada2005 will probably help a
better acceptence of Ada.

I would just like to say that in my humble opinion, using named access
type every where (and think to define them as soon as candidate to
access are defined) is probably a good idea.

A named access type can give more expressiveness than anonymous access
type (when named, you can give it a name which better express the
purpose than a generic designation of the semantic).

Yannick