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 10.159.34.241 with SMTP id 104mr21736818uan.26.1499104079780; Mon, 03 Jul 2017 10:47:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.36.26.85 with SMTP id 82mr1043226iti.6.1499104079737; Mon, 03 Jul 2017 10:47:59 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!v31no2160444qtb.0!news-out.google.com!s132ni1669itb.0!nntp.google.com!188no924324itx.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 10:47:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.71.201.205; posting-account=QF6XPQoAAABce2NyPxxDAaKdAkN6RgAf NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.71.201.205 References: <1ac5a44b-4423-443a-a7bb-2864d9abe78f@googlegroups.com> <3df6404a-588d-4e2d-a189-1d1e32ce9f5d@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <73b4a9bd-1f3b-42b9-9ef7-5303b0a88794@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Ada Annoyances From: Jere Injection-Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2017 17:47:59 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:47268 Date: 2017-07-03T10:47:59-07:00 List-Id: On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 8:04:56 PM UTC-4, Randy Brukardt wrote: > (3) Since prefixed notation does automatic dereferencing and referencing > (that is, .all and 'Access), allowing it on all types caused levels of > ambiguity (and potentially infinite regress). It was easier to just define > it on tagged types, which didn't have those issues. Perhaps it could have > been made to work, but it was more work for a feature that already had > significant opposition; probably it would have been dropped rather than > getting more complicated. (Sound like a broken record??) Was there any consideration to having prefixed notation to apply to all record types and add a way to denote that a private type is a record type (there should be many ways to do that)? We don't really need it on all types, just record types.