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: a07f3367d7,3ebfb7ec7bfb06fa
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.224.76.198 with SMTP id d6mr7617172qak.8.1359949562767;
        Sun, 03 Feb 2013 19:46:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.49.116.115 with SMTP id jv19mr1663692qeb.21.1359949562738;
 Sun, 03 Feb 2013 19:46:02 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 k2ni4456qap.0!nntp.google.com!p13no8509391qai.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 19:46:02 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <8d39b2ad-dc6c-4492-bc43-d2d01d748efa@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=69.153.54.159;
 posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.153.54.159
References: <5262a822-409a-4c79-a842-0e716527cb70@googlegroups.com>
 <85ip696nlk.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <8d39b2ad-dc6c-4492-bc43-d2d01d748efa@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <7a8403c4-2bbe-44e8-a8a1-996cc8a1f1be@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Passing indefinite types
From: Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 03:46:02 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2013-02-03T19:46:02-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sunday, February 3, 2013 7:25:39 PM UTC-6, sbelm...@gmail.com wrote:
>=20
> That's what access discriminats (and to a lesser extent, access parameter=
s) usually work well for, but I suppose there is no way to create an uncons=
trained number of them.  What I would like to see is an aspect that says "t=
his discriminated record is not going to be variant, so it's okay to nest i=
t within records and arrays", so that arrays of 'accessors' are legal.
>=20
> Thank you (everyone) for the responses.

What about structuring your generic to take a [definite] private type as it=
s parameter (and array thereof), then create a record-wrapper (a single fie=
ld, that being your access-type) (with an accessor-function), then pass an =
array of those records?