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: 103376,29fe9a340e0d180d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>
Subject: Re: Depending on passing mechanism
Date: 1997/10/23
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971023092528.6474A-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 285133580
References: <x2hgal3jxa.fsf@moon.inf.fu-berlin.de>
 <Pine.BSF.3.96.971018110638.11035B-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <mheaney-ya023680001810971451240001@news.ni.net>
 <Pine.BSF.3.96.971019135319.3201C-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <EIFEMx.989@world.std.com>
X-Trace: 877624506 17484 bpr  206.184.139.132
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-10-23T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, Robert A Duff wrote:
> 
> By the way, here's one of my gripes about Ada's limited types: For a
> non-limited record, you can initialize an object in a way that
> guarantees you don't forget any components:
> 
>     X := new T'(Comp1 => This, Comp2 => That, Comp3 => The_Other);
> 
> If I add a Comp4 component to type T, but forget to modify the above
> assignment, I'll be told about it at compile time, which is nice.
> Unfortunately, there's no such feature for limited records -- aggregates
> are illegal.

Yes, I always wondered if initialization should be decoupled from
assignment in the case of limited types. 

-- Brian