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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Intervention needed?
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 15:22:58 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <874l7y4i7x.fsf@nightsong.com>
References: <b196da6e-4614-42f9-9147-b1708c6e5094@googlegroups.com>
	<c16f6c7d-34d9-4d7e-96e6-9c00e387b2a9@googlegroups.com>
	<q66m95$8ri$1@dont-email.me>
	<a534f338-a418-424e-8043-31c738682807@googlegroups.com>
	<q68mv0$rea$1@dont-email.me>
	<a4ab4f3c-9151-47c7-9d3f-f6a23451fa0e@googlegroups.com>
	<bba8f6a8-36ce-4bed-bd84-8a9ea7dc02f7@googlegroups.com>
	<q699nu$ban$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
	<6e1977a5-701e-4b4f-a937-a1b89d9127f0@googlegroups.com>
	<q6pa1g$3j7$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
	<6f9ea847-2903-48c8-9afc-930201f2765a@googlegroups.com>
	<q6qa4u$kd0$1@gioia.aioe.org> <q6rp17$ajh$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="fae3a525a353552e1467f1269cb4ae18";
	logging-data="17642"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19C8XNXgexqr0B2EZrG0tY/"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fGR6k0AMn6+LuXIOXfPVMOms3r0=
	sha1:rfGkFlABhHQTqKxs2oBZ7wCkfUc=
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:55901
Date: 2019-03-19T15:22:58-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:
> A lot of what the ownership scheme does well isn't really necessary in
> Ada in the first place, as one can use a discriminant-dependent
> component to get the same effect without any pointers at all.

Does that mean just some kind of tagged record?  Of course that would
work the same way in other languages, maybe with different surface
syntax.

> and singly-linked lists (which are just sequences of elements, can be
> modeled as an array just as well as with a list).

I think that's not so easy: a common practice with linked lists is to
have multiple lists with different heads sharing the same tail.  So
there has to be some indirection.