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: a07f3367d7,5ebeef2944e4167d
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.180.75.8 with SMTP id y8mr5141306wiv.4.1346980966889;
        Thu, 06 Sep 2012 18:22:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: 
 q11ni5513255wiw.1!nntp.google.com!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!194.109.133.85.MISMATCH!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed6.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!border4.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!news.mixmin.net!news2.arglkargh.de!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!munin.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: anonymous aggregates?
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 17:37:48 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <k1rec3$68q$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: <85mx1bwec4.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1346452676 6426 69.95.181.76 (31 Aug 2012 22:37:56 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 22:37:56 +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: 2012-08-31T17:37:48-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Stephen Leake" <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote in message 
news:85mx1bwec4.fsf@stephe-leake.org...
...
> If we introduce the notion of "anonymous aggregates" (styled after
> "anonymous arrays"), we could do this:

I'd be more likely to call this idea an "anonymous record" as that is the 
obvious counterpart to "anonymous array".

declare
    function Foo return
       record
          A : Integer;
          B : Float;
        end record
    is begin
        return
            (A => 1,
             B => 2.0);
    end Foo;

(As a side-benefit, there'd be less griping about not repeating the name in 
a record declaration. ;-)

I suspect that this was not done originally in Ada mainly because of 
concerns about arbitrarily introducing additional identifiers in the middle 
of other declarations. Not sure that's a real problem; there might be some 
weird visibility issues that arose.

                                       Randy.