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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.224.54.73 with SMTP id p9mr66913631qag.1.1374940832609; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 09:00:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.2.74 with SMTP id 10mr162794igs.15.1374940832571; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 09:00:32 -0700 (PDT) Path: border1.nntp.ams3.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!209.85.216.87.MISMATCH!cb17no19746qab.0!news-out.google.com!ce7ni0qab.0!nntp.google.com!cb17no89887qab.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 09:00:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=69.20.190.126; posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.20.190.126 References: <42dc042d-e458-42a4-abb7-23907982b88f@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Problem with limited with From: Shark8 Injection-Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 16:00:32 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Original-Bytes: 1875 Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:182715 Date: 2013-07-27T09:00:32-07:00 List-Id: 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.)