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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1116ece181be1aea
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-01 05:47:52 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!cycny01.gnilink.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!nwrdny03.gnilink.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "Frank J. Lhota" <NOSPAM.lhota.adarose@verizon.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <NGs6b.10770$Pa1.519789@read1.cgocable.net>
 <vhieky4922o.fsf@niu.ifi.uio.no> <ud6dolepw.fsf@nasa.gov>
 <1064527575.648809@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3F739C1D.4030907@attbi.com>
 <uoex8i8i9.fsf@earthlink.net> <na5fnvcqjdvjbutt1s7hu9mhqadjk4jemb@4ax.com>
 <3F78E850.8010401@comcast.net>
 <slrnbniahu.g9.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <3F797748.3000203@noplace.com> <834clb.uan1.ln@skymaster>
 <3F79EF18.7060600@comcast.net>
 <slrnbnjv9h.f3.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
Subject: Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada?
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Message-ID: <Y1Aeb.10094$kD3.173@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:47:52 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 141.154.200.8
X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net
X-Trace: nwrdny03.gnilink.net 1065012472 141.154.200.8 (Wed,
 01 Oct 2003 08:47:52 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 08:47:52 EDT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:65
Date: 2003-10-01T12:47:52+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"Preben Randhol" <randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@pvv.org> wrote in
message
news:slrnbnjv9h.f3.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
> I can agree on that since Bounded are generic.

My only objection to Strings.Bounded is the unnecessary use of a generic. I
would have been happier if they had skipped the Generic_Bounded_Length
package and defined Bounded_String as a type with a discriminant that
defines the maximum length, i.e.

    type Bounded_String ( Max : Positive ) is private;

This approach would be easier to use, at the cost of some additional
constraints on the implementers. I know of no implementation of
Strings.Bounded, however, that could not easily be adapted to this scheme.