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!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!newsfeed.xs3.de!io.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!franka.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED.a109-49-159-46.cpe.netcabo.pt!not-for-mail
From: Jacob Sparre Andersen <jacob@jacob-sparre.dk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Why are Ada compilers difficult to write ?
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 08:31:32 +0200
Organization: JSA Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <87zhzjml6j.fsf@adaheads.home>
References: <584564c2-9f64-4965-b045-535cdaf899c0@googlegroups.com>
	<pgdtbd$7pd$1@dont-email.me>
	<7cb22c58-3009-47f0-8fe7-62f3cd61785d@googlegroups.com>
	<b09eac1a-0783-4a44-bb90-4820da4afe30@googlegroups.com>
	<pgjai9$bhp$1@dont-email.me> <pgkneo$tpa$1@gioia.aioe.org>
	<2d617160-ac33-40e6-a06a-97cc0b53062d@googlegroups.com>
	<874lhsnvye.fsf@adaheads.home> <pgq0lq$nms$3@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: franka.jacob-sparre.dk;
 posting-host="a109-49-159-46.cpe.netcabo.pt:109.49.159.46";
	logging-data="12727"; mail-complaints-to="news@jacob-sparre.dk"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:D8PYOf+5HnRU3+lLZnSpzV04e8o=
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:53285
Date: 2018-06-25T08:31:32+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Simon Clubley wrote:

> Are anonymous access types a mistake?

I suspect it.  But even if we could come up with a solution to the
challenges related to implementing containers with as readable usage as
what we have to day, it would be a - hugely untraditional - major break
of backwards compatibility to remove them from the language again.

> Removing them increases the level of required formality in code but
> you can argue either way whether this is a bad thing or not.

It is my experience that the current containers, with "for ... of" loops
and variable access to container elements make for much more readable
source text.

My problem is that giving us that bit of readability also has allowed
API developers to use anonymous access types in all other kinds of
places - mostly in places where traditional, named access types would
work perfectly well, and not impose a severe run-time (and compiler
complexity) cost.

Greetings,

Jacob
-- 
»It will not be forever. - It will just seem like it.« -- Death