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: 103376,1116ece181be1aea
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-04 01:28:16 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!dialin-145-254-043-040.arcor-ip.NET!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada?
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 10:33:01 +0200
Organization: At home
Message-ID: <blm0as$dkoad$1@ID-77047.news.uni-berlin.de>
References: <3F739C1D.4030907@attbi.com> <uoex8i8i9.fsf@earthlink.net>
 <na5fnvcqjdvjbutt1s7hu9mhqadjk4jemb@4ax.com> <3F78E850.8010401@comcast.net>
 <slrnbniahu.g9.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <3F797748.3000203@noplace.com> <834clb.uan1.ln@skymaster>
 <3F79EF18.7060600@comcast.net>
 <slrnbnjv9h.f3.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <Y1Aeb.10094$kD3.173@nwrdny03.gnilink.net> <3F7B1076.8060106@comcast.net>
 <5mknnv4u96qqudrt4bd8n4t1cljp2fjlp8@4ax.com> <3F7C810E.7070100@comcast.net>
 <blklut$dala6$2@ID-77047.news.uni-berlin.de> <3F7E25C1.1060509@comcast.net>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: dialin-145-254-043-040.arcor-ip.net (145.254.43.40)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1065256093 14311757 145.254.43.40 (16 [77047])
User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:197
Date: 2003-10-04T10:33:01+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert I. Eachus wrote:

> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> 
>> Even if I pack the array into a record to have a discriminant, even so,
>> it will be still illegal:
>> 
>> type Array_Of_Same_Elements (Constraint : Natural) is record
>>    Body : array (...) of Element (Constraint);
>> end record;
>> 
>> Note that it is *not* a ragged array. All elements are of exactly *same*
>> size. What is required is:
>> 
>> type Array_Of_Same_Elements (Constraint : Natural) is
>>    array (...) of Element (Constraint);
> 
> What you are complaining about here is that Ada currently allows unnamed
> array types as objects, but not as components of records.

No. I am complaining that the universal concept of using the discriminant
values as the constraints is not applicable to all types. This irregularity
causes abberations all over the language design.

For instance, you have used it to justify a generics-based design for
bounded strings as opposed to a much more clearer and easier to use
solution based on discriminated records.

> If anything I
> am with you on this one, but I think that the ARG would be more likely
> to eliminate unnamed array types than allow them in new contexts.
>
> (Notice that Ada is somewhat consistant in this, you can declare task
> types, and task objects, and protected objects and protected types, but
> not record objects.)

... not scalar types, not access types. Whether to allow them is a question.

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