From: Adam Beneschan <adambeneschan@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Problem with limited with
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:17:32 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 2013-07-26T15:17:32-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cee34511-bfa7-49e1-a1b1-e7a01b42df58@googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ksun08$tbn$1@dont-email.me>
On Friday, July 26, 2013 1:49:08 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Carter wrote:
> On 07/26/2013 12:14 PM, Simon Wright wrote:
> The best solution is to avoid limited with:
No, the best solution is to not write these packages at all, since it's obvious that Simon's code doesn't do anything useful.
C'mon, people. It should be possible to ask a question about the language rules by posting a reduced case, without getting comments about why the poster didn't write his code a different way, or why the identifiers aren't descriptive, or why a complete working example wasn't posted or something. There seems to have been an increase in the number of this sort of unhelpful answer in recent months, and I'm getting pretty frustrated. Obviously this case is reduced from a larger case where LIMITED WITH *was* needed (and that would be obvious to me even if I hadn't seen the original example on stackoverflow).
And by the way--yes, it does look like a GNAT bug.
-- Adam
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-26 22:17 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 [this message]
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
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