From: Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Problem with limited with
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 09:00:32 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 2013-07-27T09:00:32-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c482c038-dd30-44c1-ac3b-f0334d9d28e5@googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ksvm86$5hu$1@dont-email.me>
On Friday, July 26, 2013 11:42:27 PM UTC-6, Jeffrey Carter wrote:
> On 07/26/2013 07:32 PM, Shark8 wrote:
> >
> > Is that a bad design-choice? If so, why?
>
> Certainly. It uses anonymous types and visible access types, both Bad Ideas.
To be fair, the ONLY reason I have to use anonymous access types at all there is because GNAT chokes up when I try to use the type itself. (I think there's a comment to that effect elsewhere.)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-27 16:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-26 19:14 Problem with limited with Simon Wright
2013-07-26 20:49 ` Jeffrey Carter
2013-07-26 22:17 ` Adam Beneschan
2013-07-26 22:25 ` Shark8
2013-07-26 22:35 ` Simon Wright
2013-07-27 0:17 ` Jeffrey Carter
2013-07-27 1:08 ` Adam Beneschan
2013-07-27 8:05 ` Simon Wright
2013-07-27 2:32 ` Shark8
2013-07-27 5:42 ` Jeffrey Carter
2013-07-27 16:00 ` Shark8 [this message]
2013-07-27 17:13 ` Jeffrey Carter
2013-07-27 19:21 ` Simon Wright
2013-07-28 2:51 ` Randy Brukardt
2013-07-27 3:55 ` Randy Brukardt
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox