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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930
X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-04-28 02:29:57 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!proxad.net!freenix!deine.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!dialin-145-254-037-186.arcor-ip.NET!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: the Ada mandate,
 and why it collapsed and died (was): 64 bit  addressing and OOP
Followup-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:31:47 +0200
Organization: At home
Message-ID: <b8isai$aavhe$1@ID-77047.news.dfncis.de>
References: <mvul4v00ftbai2g6duuh0r38jpii2qvpjl@4ax.com>
 <a3eaa964.0302141953.16f72dfe@posting.google.com>
 <3E4E8F8C.9C096985@adaworks.com>
 <9fa75d42.0302250710.5549baaf@posting.google.com>
 <3E5C7033.BD5DC462@adaworks.com>
 <9fa75d42.0302260618.7506cba7@posting.google.com>
 <3E5CF5C6.84822F57@adaworks.com>
 <a3eaa964.0302261448.6f38de58@posting.google.com>
 <8qkczsAcGcn+Ew83@nildram.co.uk>
 <a3eaa964.0304162216.60978001@posting.google.com>
 <3EA04A1E.CAFC1FEF@adaworks.com>
 <9fa75d42.0304221126.7112b7d5@posting.google.com>
 <b84gku$2i5l$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <wccadeiglef.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <b84p53$2q70$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <wccy91vncoa.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: dialin-145-254-037-186.arcor-ip.net (145.254.37.186)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1051522195 10845742 145.254.37.186 (16 [77047])
User-Agent: KNode/0.7.1
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:62826 comp.object:62164
 comp.lang.ada:36682
Date: 2003-04-28T11:31:47+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert A Duff wrote:

> Yes, by "L-value", I meant on the left-hand side of an assignment, or an
> 'out' parameter, or similar things.  If X(1..80) is just syntactic sugar
> for a function call Slice(X, 1, 80) or Slice(X, First => 1, Last => 80),
> then it would be little trouble for the Ada compiler.

Do you mean that Slice (...) would always have a copy semantics? 

> And I would think it would be but a minor convenience for the programmer.

> But when slices are used as L-values, there are various interactions
> with packing and whatnot that cause compiler complexity.

Isn't it already there because array elements can be also L-values? Or that 
objects of some types have to be constructed in-place? I mean, with or 
without slices, one cannot get rid of this problem anyway.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de