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: a07f3367d7,735c710b5e547bad X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.224.100.137 with SMTP id y9mr899924qan.2.1343315565329; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:12:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.84.65 with SMTP id w1mr1464248pay.37.1343315166290; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:06:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Path: a15ni113198934qag.0!nntp.google.com!q21no4250517qas.0!news-out.google.com!p10ni64961001pbh.1!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!news.albasani.net!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!munin.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada 2005 puzzle Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 01:53:35 -0500 Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation Message-ID: References: <1arp60wtxes8h$.1qs6bt732ztgp.dlg@40tude.net> <030cde76-7435-405d-9f12-ac7f730ecab8@googlegroups.com> <1f9q6vk5z2r3t$.1hayo9rmxfwu7$.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1342680819 7268 69.95.181.76 (19 Jul 2012 06:53:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 06:53:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Date: 2012-07-19T01:53:35-05:00 List-Id: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote in message news:1f9q6vk5z2r3t$.1hayo9rmxfwu7$.dlg@40tude.net... ... > (I never doubted that limited aggregates were broken, but I didn't think > that nobody intended them to work.) We intended them to work. It's just that we found out after the fact that the extension aggregate case is very difficult to implement on most compilers. (It's no problem for Janus/Ada, which uses a fixed size for all objects; any dynamically sized part is handled using implicit pointer and allocation. But that solution is hated by almost everyone.) My personal feeling always was that this restriction was not acceptable, but I couldn't explain why. Thus, I think it would be a good idea to send your problem to Ada-Comment, so that the ARG can consider the problem. I'm pretty sure that your example is reasonable in all respects, and I can't figure out any good reason that you shouldn't be able to do it. (With the obvious exception that "limited" almost never is really what you want in Ada, and I don't think that ever could change. I try to use non-limited types for almost everything; clever use of Adjust fixes most problems. That's why windows are non-limited in Claw, for example.) Randy.