Re: U : Unbounded_String := "bla bla bla"; (was: Is the Writing...)

["(see below)" <yaldnifb@blueyonder.co.uk>]

On 16/10/03 14:54, in article
mailman.99.1066312586.25614.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org, "Alexandre E.
Kopilovitch" <aek@vib.usr.pu.ru> wrote:

>> I was not clear enough. I intended the "<>" to mean that only the predefined
>> literal conversion was to be used. Perhaps that is not necessary?
> 
> It is desirable option, I just didn't catch it myself. But I doubt that "<>"
> here is good: is there a place in Ada where "<>" carries the sense of
> "predefined"?

Kind of. Sort of. 8-)

When you specify generic formal functions over a a generic formal type,
e.g.:
  generic
     type T is ....;
     function "+" (L,R : in Thing) return Thing is <>;
   ...
Meaning that the primitive "+" for thing is the default.

> Actually we may write for that case:
> 
> for Flex'Class'Literal_Conversion use Flex'Literal_Conversion;
> 
> It will certainly carry the indended sense, but it is quite long and somehow
> indirectly, thus looking as one more idiom. So, I'd prefer your suggestion if
> "<>" is already associated with "predefined", but if not (and if there is no
> other conventional symbol for "predefined") then I'd stick to the latter
> (long) notation.

Yours is better, because more explicit, I think.
-- 
Bill