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 10.224.169.1 with SMTP id w1mr22804606qay.4.1374877052653; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:17:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.126.33 with SMTP id mv1mr46489igb.1.1374877052456; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:17:32 -0700 (PDT) Path: border1.nntp.ams3.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.osn.de!diablo2.news.osn.de!news.glorb.com!cb17no393825qab.0!news-out.google.com!dk8ni1421qab.0!nntp.google.com!cb17no393815qab.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:17:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=RxNzCgoAAACA5KmgtFQuaU-WaH7rjnAO NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 References: User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Problem with limited with From: Adam Beneschan Injection-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 22:17:32 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Original-Bytes: 2250 Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:182695 Date: 2013-07-26T15:17:32-07:00 List-Id: 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 obv= ious 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 pos= ter didn't write his code a different way, or why the identifiers aren't de= scriptive, or why a complete working example wasn't posted or something. T= here 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 thi= s case is reduced from a larger case where LIMITED WITH *was* needed (and t= hat would be obvious to me even if I hadn't seen the original example on st= ackoverflow). And by the way--yes, it does look like a GNAT bug. -- Adam