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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,371fb4e2d57c3f18 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-09 23:57:17 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!zeus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!grey.octanews.net!green.octanews.net!news.octanews.net!news-xfer.cox.net!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!border3.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 01:57:15 -0600 Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:57:14 -0500 From: "Robert I. Eachus" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Literals for Private Types References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.34.214.193 X-Trace: sv3-aaZXIwgN6Gzq9GaeBss1n9cdtSE20MFERxsBjLMPoT1eLquD4jb7+hJWP4IohMSnnLhvKCNTrRi1avb!e0LKIhJ73Ah3CMZilgyrkiUuQOoXySoMQ8f5bjubi1lnkzY129lYEoNgODH6zg== X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3298 Date: 2003-12-10T02:57:14-05:00 List-Id: Alexandre E. Kopilovitch wrote: > Near 3 weeks ago I sent to Ada-Comment mailing list my proposal for literals > for private types. As no reaction followed there, I concluded that the proposal > sank in silence. Therefore I decided to post a brief and informal exposition > of that proposal here in comp.land.ada (I suppose that those people who might > be interested in full and more formal version are subscribed to Ada-Comment > and therefore already saw it). Here it is: Actually, quite the opposite, there has been a huge discussion on the ARG list about AI-318 (Returning [limited] objects without copying) and AI-325 (Anonymous access types as function result types). What we are converging on will probably be by far the biggest change in Ada 0Y from current Ada. (And IMHO a very big improvement.) The net result, assuming that we do get all the loose ends tied up and reach consensus, will be that it will be possible to initialize limited objects either with an aggregate, or something similar to a function. (The 'something similar to part' means that we think that these special constructors need a flag in the syntax, since the calling sequence generated needs to be different, but haven't agreed on what the new syntax should look like.) But any action on something else involving functions of limited types (literals are notationally a function in Ada, as are some attributes) will only occur after we get the ground rules for initializing limited objects nailed down. I think that for some reason some of the discussion is in AI-325 not AI-318 on the website. If you want to look at the current discussion be sure to allocate a couple of days. The many of the issues go deep into compiler internals, and there are a lot of pages of discussion there. There have been days where I had trouble keeping up in real-time, and as you can see, Randy, Tucker and I are the main posters. -- Robert I. Eachus 100% Ada, no bugs--the only way to create software.