From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 19 Oct 92 14:13:20 GMT
From: aio!dnsurber@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Douglas N. Surber)
Subject: Re: User-defined assignment
Message-ID: <dnsurber.719504000@node_26400>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In <1992Oct17.175730.17448@software.org> smithd@software.org (Doug Smith) write
s:

>In article <1992Oct16.231346.11881@inmet.camb.inmet.com> you write:

>Really, if this is the worst, I can live with it!  This is
>not worth crippling the language over.  In fact, this sounds
>like the baby (user-defined assignment) is being thrown out
>with the bath-water (the few problems introduced).

>These arguments appear valid, but they don't apply to any
>of the situations that I have uncovered in practice.  Please
>don't cripple Ada9X because of these difficulties.

>I am currently working on the Ada Quality & Style guide.  It
>is very common for these guidelines to explain how certain
>features should best be used.  It also explains where certain
>dangerous programming practices should be avoided.  If there
>is an Ada9X Quality & Style guide, these concerns you point
>out would be ideal warnings to the practicing programmer.

>Unfortunately, if user-defined assignment is not available,
>the guidelines explaining how to do memory management and
>garbage collection will be pretty sparce (as in Ada).  There
>is no need to explain the correct way to use a feature that
>doesn't exist.

>Doug Smith
>smithd@software.org

Hear! Hear!

Douglas Surber
Lockheed 
Houston, TX