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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00, LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,fdc75443ea18fb32 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-29 15:16:21 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Standard Queue status Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:54:43 -0500 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9u6ebl$921$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <%QRM7.39743$xS6.65958@www.newsranger.com> <9u0qhb$pq5$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9u0ujd$rhg$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9u627b$42t$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <%ZwN7.42782$xS6.72544@www.newsranger.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1007074485 9281 136.170.200.133 (29 Nov 2001 22:54:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Nov 2001 22:54:45 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17198 Date: 2001-11-29T22:54:45+00:00 List-Id: "Ted Dennison" wrote in message news:%ZwN7.42782$xS6.72544@www.newsranger.com... > > Perhaps, but I'm pretty sure we already argued that one and decided against it. > It would require some kind of "copy" routine be supplied as a generic, which > would require even the 90% who *don't* want to deal with limited types to go > create themselves a copy routine that performs vanilla assignment just to make > the generic happy. Some suggested that we could create limited and non-limited > versions, but the general agreement we arrived at was to just drop the whole > thing and not deal with limited types. If it ends up being a huge problem, > someone can always create a parallel "Containers.Lists.Limited_Unbounded package > later. > O.K., I can live with that too! :-) Either way, you get a list structure that isn't too horribly complicated to use. I don't find that many uses for limited private types now that we've got finalization, so I'd be happier with a private formal. (No extra work). But if we have really strong feelings on the other side of it, I can get over having to define an Assign procedure. Lets shoot for private and see if any serious limited fans come out of the woodwork. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/