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,e1bb9627c57b7d5b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-16 07:11:49 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!proxad.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!internal-news-hub.cableinet.net!news-text.cableinet.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.4.030702.0 Subject: Re: U : Unbounded_String := "bla bla bla"; (was: Is the Writing...) From: "(see below)" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Message-ID: References: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:11:47 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.41.184.118 X-Complaints-To: abuse@blueyonder.co.uk X-Trace: news-text.cableinet.net 1066313507 82.41.184.118 (Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:11:47 BST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:11:47 BST Organization: blueyonder (post doesn't reflect views of blueyonder) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:983 Date: 2003-10-16T14:11:47+00:00 List-Id: On 16/10/03 14:54, in article mailman.99.1066312586.25614.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org, "Alexandre E. Kopilovitch" 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