Re: Type of the target of an assignment shall not be abstract

[Gautier write-only <gautier_niouzes@hotmail.com>]

On 16 Feb., 01:59, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com>:

> FYI, I asked about this on Ada-Comment, and got a response from
> Randy.  [...]
Thanks!
IHMO, no need to worry about how well or not the standard handles
that.
To answer my original question, can I conclude that GNAT is wrong on
that case, and that I can send a report ?

> My own recommendation: If you want the 14 components of the abstract
> type Excel_Out_Stream to be treated as a unit, then make them a unit---
> i.e. define a record type with 14 components, and then
> Excel_Out_Stream would have just one component of that record type.
> Of course, that decision probably has to be made when the package is
> first written; making that change now would require changing how all
> those components are accessed everywhere else in the program.  Barring
> that, you can either write 14 assignment statements and hope the
> compiler is smart enough to optimize them, or you can use a "trick"
> like Dmitry's suggestion, which will "work" but (in my opinion)
> doesn't help set up a type structure that accurately reflects the
> concepts in your program.

Sure, but isn't your recommendation a trick as well ?
Then I should write xl.X.blabla all over the package's body (where X
is the record type you suggest).
That for sure will pervert the concepts, readability, etc.
Choosing between both tricks, I'd prefer Dmitry's.
I'll give a clear name to the concrete-before-abstract type, like
"Pre_Root", and try to have it private.
Let's see how it turns out...

Thanks
Gautier