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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5606d8433901738c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Allocating "initialized" limited types...
Date: 1996/09/05
Message-ID: <DxA7AB.CLB@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 178749422
references: <JSA.96Aug30173704@alexandria> <JSA.96Sep2183857@alexandria>
 <1996Sep4.183415.17277@ocsystems.com> <JSA.96Sep5151217@alexandria>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-09-05T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <JSA.96Sep5151217@alexandria>, Jon S Anthony <jsa@alexandria> wrote:
>Actually, this supports my notion that the idea of "initialization"
>after creation of the limited object (in an allocator in particular)
>is not the best way of thinking of it.  The "value is the object" bit
>hits this pretty well.  In fact, that is pretty much _exactly_ the
>point.  So, since the design team thought the same here, the whole
>thing becomes rather mysterious as to why things turned out as they
>did.

Well, the Ada 9X design team thought this.  And I remember writing this
particular paragraph after much discussion with Tucker, and rather late
in the Ada 9X project.

But Ada 95 inherited the initialization mechanisms from Ada 83, and
there was no pressure to change them (no "Revision Requests" along those
lines, as far as I remember).  Frankly, it never occurred to me to
change the initialization stuff.  (Although it apparently did occur to
Henry Baker, before Ada 9X.)  Nothing is really broken -- there's just a
nice piece-to-have feature that's not there for limited types.  (Most
languages don't have that feature for *any* types, and don't have
limited types at all!  Think about an aggregate (or whatever it's
called) in C, where any missing fields are conveniently filled with
zeros.

>The problem (well, the one at the center of this thread anyway) has
>nothing at all to do with tagged types.  It concerns limited types and
>"initialized" allocators.  So, presumably T is the _limited_ type that
>I originally mentioned (and thus C is limited too).

You misunderstand the suggestion.  Make T non-limited, but C (containing
a T) limited.  It works for tagged and untagged.

- Bob