Re: String_Holder ?

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Natasha Kerensikova" <lithiumcat@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:slrnjerndj.1lme.lithiumcat@sigil.instinctive.eu...
...
> Assuming it does make sense, am I right in thinking it's better to have
> such a type, even if it's a thin wrapper around Unbounded_String,
> instead of using directly Unbounded_String?

What exactly is the advantage of your Holder type over Unbounded_String 
(other than shorter operation names :-)?

   function Hold (S : String) return String_Holder; seems to be the same as 
function To_Unbounded_String. A renames would do the trick nicely.

   function To_String (Holder : String_Holder) return String; seems to be 
the same as function To_String, don't even need to rename that.

   procedure Query (Holder : String_Holder;
                 Process : not null access procedure (S : String));
       would be trivial to write in terms of To_String, and would be more 
expensive than using To_String directly.

So I don't understand the point -- and you clearly need a reason to write a 
new package here rather than using the built-in one.

                                                    Randy.