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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.66.222.197 with SMTP id qo5mr23503038pac.44.1465434727169; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 18:12:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.157.14.228 with SMTP id 91mr431938otj.11.1465434726899; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 18:12:06 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!p34no4464873qgp.1!news-out.google.com!z5ni302qge.0!nntp.google.com!p34no4464870qgp.1!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:12:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.171.109.232; posting-account=vk6_JwoAAABkMyHO1YfdP69Hm3CpbdGR NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.171.109.232 References: <8af002bb-271a-4a76-b0db-097a3724f0b3@googlegroups.com> <7263ac4b-945c-4702-b998-e87c1de1f4a7@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <72e28bf8-5fb2-42d8-8346-29d72f88d8da@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Avoiding dispatching in procedure's with classwide types From: Jeremiah Injection-Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 01:12:06 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:30669 Date: 2016-06-08T18:12:06-07:00 List-Id: On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 5:05:37 PM UTC-4, Randy Brukardt wrote: > Mainly because there were semantic problems with allowing prefixed notation > on some kinds of untagged types (esp. access types). Because Ada tries hard > not to break privacy for Legality Rules, disallowing access types also > requires disallowing any untagged private types (as the full type might have > been access). Since essentially all ADTs should be tagged (and controlled) > these days, just saying tagged seemed like the best way to deal with the > issues. Ok, that makes sense. > I have to wonder if a "final" for a tagged type (not an operation) would be > useful, as there's no real good reason to hide taggedness (and lots of good > reasons not to hide it, prefix notation being exhibit A). > > Randy. I could get behind that as that would solve my issue. Plus it shouldn't break existing code. Should still be able to subtype it?