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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9fb64e4c58f1fe
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: overload ":=" ???
Date: 1996/07/22
Message-ID: <dewar.838093304@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 169789249
references: <dewar.837740729@schonberg> <Duy6HK.BLM@world.std.com>
 <ws9d91oko89.fsf@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu> <31F40F0C.3FDACA19@jinx.sckans.edu>
 <Duz3ns.2rA@world.std.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


David Morton  <dmorton@jinx.sckans.edu> wrote:
>I looked at that, and it would be great, but...
>RM A.04.04.106
>seems to say that this isn't good with dynamic pointers
>(or am I misreading this?)



something doesn't compute here :-)

In your example, you didnt' use pointers either, but rather a record
structure that is almost EXACTLY what is intended by the above
implementation advice.

Don't get confused here, that paragraph is not saying you can't have
pointers (accesses) to bounded strings, it is just advising that you
should not use pointers in the implementation of the type itself. 

It really does seem like bounded strings are EXACTLY what you want!