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 10.224.163.14 with SMTP id y14mr51808258qax.3.1374877528027; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:25:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.101.78 with SMTP id fe14mr1846457qeb.13.1374877528009; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:25:28 -0700 (PDT) Path: border1.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.readnews.com!transit3.readnews.com!209.85.216.88.MISMATCH!cb17no394471qab.0!news-out.google.com!dk8ni1421qab.0!nntp.google.com!cb17no394465qab.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:25:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=69.20.190.126; posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.20.190.126 References: User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <78e0db75-666f-4094-82aa-6bd5f30a77c0@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Problem with limited with From: Shark8 Injection-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 22:25:28 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Original-Bytes: 2935 Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:182696 Date: 2013-07-26T15:25:27-07:00 List-Id: On Friday, July 26, 2013 4:17:32 PM UTC-6, Adam Beneschan wrote: > On Friday, July 26, 2013 1:49:08 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Carter wrote: >=20 > > On 07/26/2013 12:14 PM, Simon Wright wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 > > The best solution is to avoid limited with: >=20 >=20 >=20 > No, the best solution is to not write these packages at all, since it's o= bvious that Simon's code doesn't do anything useful. >=20 >=20 >=20 > C'mon, people. It should be possible to ask a question about the languag= e rules by posting a reduced case, without getting comments about why the p= oster didn't write his code a different way, or why the identifiers aren't = descriptive, or why a complete working example wasn't posted or something. = There seems to have been an increase in the number of this sort of unhelpf= ul answer in recent months, and I'm getting pretty frustrated. Obviously t= his case is reduced from a larger case where LIMITED WITH *was* needed (and= that would be obvious to me even if I hadn't seen the original example on = stackoverflow). >=20 >=20 >=20 > And by the way--yes, it does look like a GNAT bug. >=20 >=20 >=20 > -- Adam You are correct; it is annoying. I came across an interesting case where (using limited with) using an actua= l type in a parameter resulted in it being uncompilable and had to use anon= ymous-access as the parameter instead. (Of course I excluded null, as these= functions would be meaningless w/o access to that parameter -- but it woul= d have been nicer to simply have the parameter be the actual type.)