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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,1449b098788729b8
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: prefix of dereference must be a name?
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <u4osuzlxw.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <3fe4b8a8-daf9-4161-84e2-ff230a2e7afd@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>
 <uljm5xdlj.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:23:56 +0200
Message-ID: <enpoiz1sjx5g.hp6oc7p02snu.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Jul 2009 14:23:54 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 34740cc0.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=_nkal2M[D@UAX0F2i><W:SMcF=Q^Z^V3X4Fo<]lROoRQ^YC2XCjHcbY1obUf_i?@_WDNcfSJ;bb[UIRnRBaCd<M^GObXeF1YEC_NKVMaMaEV<U
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7484
Date: 2009-07-31T14:23:54+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 08:04:56 -0400, Stephen Leake wrote:

> Looking in the annotated language reference manual, I find this in
> 4.1, about what could be allowed as the prefix for .all:
> 
> 17.f
>           Discussion: Actually, it would be reasonable to allow any
>           primary in front of .all, since only the value is needed, but
>           that would be a bit radical.
> 
> I guess that makes me a radical, which is nothing new :).
>
> And yesterday's "radical" is today's "progressive". That note is from
> the Ada 95 changes; time to move on!

Talking  about radicalism it would be much better to remove ".all" where an
object of target type is expected.

   A.all := C + B;  -- Unambiguous

> But as you say, I want more than a primary, I want an expression. Hmm.
> "primary" includes "qualified_expression". That would save me from
> declaring Copy above. Although when things are class-wide the necessary
> type qualifier can be quite long.
> 
> I still don't see the fundamental problem.

Huh, it is the same problem as here:

   Two := ("A" & "B")'Length; -- Illegal

too RADICAL ! (:-))

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de