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,d0490497bd8e3f95,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Syntax for tagged record types
Date: 1997/05/24
Message-ID: <dewar.864485829@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 243619928
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-05-24T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Matthew says

<<I think that using discriminants as "constructor arguments" is a real
kludge, and obfuscates declarations.  Ada 95 doesn't have constructors, so
let's not try to fight the language.>>

Most people find the use of discriminants as "constructor arguments" a
natural and powerful feature in Ada (though naturally they don't think
in terms of this terminology).

You can declare that "I think X is a kludge" for any X, but such a statement
is only helpful to discussion if you give some idea *why* you think this.