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=1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,bd40601768eaf8fd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Array of Variant Records Question...
Date: 1999/09/09
Message-ID: <7r8t21$ov5$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 523022587
References: <7r5vh3$imu1@svlss.lmms.lmco.com> <37d6a45c@news1.prserv.net>
 <eExB3.6$ZR.1146@news.wenet.net> <37d6ccb6@news1.prserv.net>
 <7r77i8$i08$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <37d7c116@news1.prserv.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x32.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Sep 09 18:08:12 1999 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 1999-09-09T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <37d7c116@news1.prserv.net>,
  "Matthew Heaney" <matthew_heaney@acm.org> wrote:
> 1) access constant params

no comment, not exciting ...>

> 2) the ability to cast away const w/o using
Sys.Addr_To_Acc_Convs

Sorry, no idea what this means

> 3) types whose full view is limited should be implicitly
aliased, just like for tagged types

This sounds distinctly NOT upwards compatible since it may
change representations

> 4) implicit conversion of an access param to a named access
type
>
> 5) implicit conversion of a specific access type to an access
type that
> designates an ancestor that is class-wide

Personally I don't like to add any implicit conversions, but
I think there is some sentiment for additions along these lines.

> 6) the ability to invoke a constructor/initializer for limited
types in the
> declarative region

sorry, I do not know what you mean here, and I certainly
do not know what a constructor is, example would be useful.

> 7) downward closures

discussed to death already, not worth discussing further ...


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.