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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1a52c822fc0dbb23
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!news.in2p3.fr!in2p3.fr!news.ecp.fr!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Rational for not making cursor tagged in Containers
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 00:38:44 -0500
Organization: Jacob's private Usenet server
Message-ID: <f0c7th$bpn$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
References: <1176998738.656903.141250@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
 <wccodlkz0ej.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <1177010938.200523.325290@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
 <wccodlkdrf3.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <1a8y2vakorfhx.225uqh4hifpd$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <ufy6vsyq1.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
 <1xmzi7newnilp.23m3zze8h9yi.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1177066583.5876.30.camel@localhost.localdomain>
 <pioojxhb01th.lq5kuqqdsatm.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1177080147.5876.87.camel@localhost.localdomain>
 <1q1kx2jlcvnuj.ck0711mj4few$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1177097829.26685.36.camel@localhost.localdomain>
 <wccbqhizsh0.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: jacob-sparre.dk 1177133809 12087 69.95.181.76 (21 Apr 2007 05:36:49
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 05:36:49 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15186
Date: 2007-04-21T00:38:44-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Robert A Duff" <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:wccbqhizsh0.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com...
...
> I also thought (and continue to think) that array types should be
> allowed to have discriminants.  The quote above was a jab at people
> who thought otherwise.  I lost that argument.

That would have been me. I think I was arguing simply from the
implementation complexity standpoint (my comment to Dmitry about the amount
of code needed to implement parameter passing would be a lot worse with this
capability). I think your argument was that such things should just be
implemented as records, but that leads to the explosion of possibilities
(now every array might be implemented in a number of new ways on top of the
old ways). I'm not sure I'd make that argument again. (I know I wouldn't be
against 'in out' parameters in functions again. The use of access types to
replace them is disgusting.)

                                       Randy.