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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.66.65.138 with SMTP id x10mr1183535pas.11.1447249403586; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 05:43:23 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.182.144.200 with SMTP id so8mr99132obb.5.1447249403551; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 05:43:23 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!porbandar.httrack.net!news.httrack.net!news.glorb.com!i2no304755igv.0!news-out.google.com!f6ni1091igq.0!nntp.google.com!i2no304744igv.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 05:43:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <66278720-249a-4191-a908-bb840e7f3ccc@googlegroups.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=109.88.54.35; posting-account=6m7axgkAAADBKh082FfZLdYsJ24CXYi5 NNTP-Posting-Host: 109.88.54.35 References: <7ba56b33-28d4-42d2-8b9b-5ad9f5beab8b@googlegroups.com> <87io597447.fsf@theworld.com> <66278720-249a-4191-a908-bb840e7f3ccc@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Bounded String question From: Serge Robyns Injection-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 13:43:23 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:28297 Date: 2015-11-11T05:43:23-08:00 List-Id: On Wednesday, 11 November 2015 11:52:13 UTC+1, Serge Robyns wrote: >I've had to write loads of functions like "To_Client_Name (Name : in String) >return T_Client_Name is (T_Client_Name (P_Strings.To_Bounded_String (Name));" What does escape my understanding is why can I use To_String with any type defined from P_Strings but have to define all the To_xyz explicitly. Is there a kind of "hidden" conversion applied in that case? >I've been considering using unbounded strings instead but then I'm dropping >the idea of a bounded storage for my entities. Most of these "strings" ends >up in record types which in the end will map to database entities. I still have the same issue with Bounded Strings anyway. So no point.