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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1116ece181be1aea
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-06 15:57:09 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!small1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp.gbronline.com!news.gbronline.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 17:57:05 -0500
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 17:57:20 -0500
From: Wes Groleau <groleau@freeshell.org>
Reply-To: groleau@freeshell.org
Organization: Ain't no organization here!
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US;
 rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, es-mx, pt-br, fr-ca
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada?
References: <834clb.uan1.ln@skymaster> <3F79EF18.7060600@comcast.net>
 <slrnbnjv9h.f3.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <Y1Aeb.10094$kD3.173@nwrdny03.gnilink.net> <3F7B1076.8060106@comcast.net>
 <5mknnv4u96qqudrt4bd8n4t1cljp2fjlp8@4ax.com> <3F7C810E.7070100@comcast.net>
 <blklut$dala6$2@ID-77047.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <3G2dnS15r8mycOCiXTWJkA@gbronline.com>
 <blm0au$dkoad$2@ID-77047.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <5qWdnWQBj-AB9-KiU-KYuA@gbronline.com>
 <r5n2ov4v4sso7hm065gp9b0asnf0umifvh@4ax.com>
In-Reply-To: <r5n2ov4v4sso7hm065gp9b0asnf0umifvh@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <joqdnSqMn63fbhyiU-KYuA@gbronline.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.9.86.74
X-Trace: 
 sv3-SDUOWeZPYmq/xoGePk4HooNE7SQQ2tdwWYJuWHsfSj09Se0OrEByVh6/MTxip8pxv54metKjZtBkQtw!+OwfDUqrwHSJxvVlKvI8WleQRmswC3Cmujxrgp5Af+PhcIW4rvKtM3VdwTx/oiw5qUsEG0JJdVh0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@gbronline.com
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@gbronline.com
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.1
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:340
Date: 2003-10-06T17:57:20-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> No, I want them same:
> 
> type Array_Of_Same_Strings (Length : Positive) is
>    array (Integer range <>) of
>       String (1..Length);

subtype Array_Element is String (1 .. Length);

type Array_Of_Same_Strings (Length : Positive) is
     array (Integer range <>) of Array_Element;

> Access types are inherently bad. After all this solution exists since
> K&R C. If you want to say that there are work-arounds odious to

C's pointer to anything and Ada's access to
a specific type have VERY LITTLE in common.

I do not think an array of controlled types
is odious, nor do I have any problem using
an access type where appropriate.  But since
you want the lengths the same, neither is needed.


-- 
Wes Groleau

    "A man wih an experience is never
     at the mercy of a man with an argument."
                       -- Ron Allen