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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,5ebeef2944e4167d
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.180.75.8 with SMTP id y8mr5141308wiv.4.1346980967114;
        Thu, 06 Sep 2012 18:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 q11ni5513255wiw.1!nntp.google.com!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!193.141.40.65.MISMATCH!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!border2.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!news.glorb.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.flashnewsgroups.com-b7.4zTQh5tI3A!not-for-mail
From: Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: anonymous aggregates?
References: <85mx1bwec4.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <k1rec3$68q$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 	<5041dc1d$0$6578$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 07:25:25 -0400
Message-ID: <85ligsvf8a.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (windows-nt)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9iRp7INY7ih0ybJY68Fx8kNNcp0=
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@flashnewsgroups.com
Organization: FlashNewsgroups.com
X-Trace: 857c450434228e029e66127065
X-Received-Bytes: 2055
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: 2012-09-02T07:25:25-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:

> On 01.09.12 00:37, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>> "Stephen Leake" <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote in message
>> news:85mx1bwec4.fsf@stephe-leake.org...
>> ...
>>> If we introduce the notion of "anonymous aggregates" (styled after
>>> "anonymous arrays"), we could do this:
>>
>> I'd be more likely to call this idea an "anonymous record" as that is the
>> obvious counterpart to "anonymous array".
>>
>> declare
>>      function Foo return
>>         record
>>            A : Integer;
>>            B : Float;
>>          end record
>>      is begin
>>          return
>>              (A => 1,
>>               B => 2.0);
>>      end Foo;
>>
>> (As a side-benefit, there'd be less griping about not repeating the name in
>> a record declaration. ;-)
>
> Wouldn't we be passing objects of anonymous_type_1 that right now
> cannot be assigned to anything of anonymous_type_2?
> At least not without resorting to types being the same if they
> happen use the same structure (and component names?), thus giving up
> Ada's notion of type equivalence.

Good point; anonymous arrays are different types, and cannot be assigned
to each other. So anonymous records should be the same, which defeats
the purpose.

-- 
-- Stephe