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: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria.organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Warts was Re: The stupidity of all the Ariane 5 analysts. Date: 1997/08/11 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 263518354 References: <33C835A5.362A@flash.net> <5scqlr$ju@news.sei.cmu.edu> Distribution: world Organization: PSINet Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-08-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) writes: > In article , > Jon S Anthony wrote: > >That's not nearly as bad as the one about how limited types are not > >required to be passed by reference. A flaw that was continued into > >Ada95 (with only partial mitigation). > > I would say *substantial* mitigation. Shrug. Not IMO. > I mean, if you want it to be passed by reference, export a limited > private type, and make the full type "limited record". Can work some of the time, but definitely not all of the time. > Everyone should follow this coding convention, in Ada 95: If a > limited private type is completed with a record type, make the > record type limited, too. That sounds reasonable but doesn't have anything to do with the issue. > I'm not sure how we could have done better, without damaging upward > compatibility, Yes, and? Afterall, there were other non-upward compatible changes. Yeah, I know, you don't think this one has/had the right tradeoffs. But others clearly disagree. /Jon -- Jon Anthony OMI, Belmont, MA 02178, 617.484.3383 "Nightmares - Ha! The way my life's been going lately, Who'd notice?" -- Londo Mollari