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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,447bd1cf7a88c198
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-01-16 10:02:04 PST
Path: 
 supernews.google.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail
From: mark_lundquist@my-deja.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Subprogram types vs. "limited access" (was Re: Do we need
 "Mission-Critical" software? Was: What to Do?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:47:54 GMT
Organization: Deja.com
Message-ID: <9421g6$lo$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <3A4F5A4A.9ABA2C4F@chicagonet.net> <3A4F759E.A7D63F3F@netwood.net>
 <3A50ABDF.3A8F6C0D@acm.org> <92qdnn$jfg$1@news.huji.ac.il>
 <3A50C371.8B7B871@home.com> <3A51EC04.91353CE7@uol.com.br>
 <3A529C97.2CA4777F@home.com> <3A53CB9E.EA7CF86C@uol.com.br>
 <3A5466DE.811D43A5@acm.org> <932aol$ikc$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <932mi6$r2k$1@trog.dera.gov.uk> <9343b1$3g5$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <934iuf$eqv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <umq1yuixba0.fsf@maestro.clustra.com>
 <937kc7$ssq$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93c0e9$4u6$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <93e33l$tfu$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93ekmo$a14$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <93f73f$mt1$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93fnao$49u$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <93l6ut$pvf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93mqhh$4gl$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <93npfn$13d$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93q393$opo$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <93vonj$3td$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <9404rc$en9$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <940db0$lut$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <940n90$tqn$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.213.202.184
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Jan 16 17:47:54 2001 GMT
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows NT; DigExt)
X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x59.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 130.213.202.184
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDmark_lundquist
Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:4061
Date: 2001-01-16T17:47:54+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <940n90$tqn$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <940db0$lut$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>   mark_lundquist@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <9404rc$en9$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >   Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > In article <93vonj$3td$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > >   mark_lundquist@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > Kind of, but not really :-).  Objects of T'Class really
> are
> > > _objects_,
> > > > even if you can't declare an object to be of type
> T'Class.
> > > Classwide
> > > > types are formally defined to be indefinite, as are
> > > unconstrained
> > > > types.  So you can't declare an object of type T'Class,
> for
> > > the same
> > > > reason that you cannot declare an object of type String.
> > >
> > > That seems a little misleading, you most certainly can
> declare
> > >
> > >   a : string := "hello";
> > >
> >
> > A little misleading?  That's charitable of you! :-)
>
> Well for most purposes,
>
>       a : string := "hello";
>
> DOES mean exactly the same as
>
>       a : string (1 .. 5) := "hello";
>
> and indeed in Ada 83 it was EXACTLY right to think of the
> omission of constraints as a shorthand (in the constant case).
>
> And mostly you will get away with this view, which is why I
> said that it was only a little misleading.

Yes, but what I originally *said* was that you can't declare an object
of type String, which is just plain old wrong.  The two examples of
course are of just such a declaration; whether or not they mean the
same thing is a side issue! :-)

What I *meant*, and what I should have said, is that you can't say

    X : String;

Cheers,
-- mark


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/