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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 border1.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!reality.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Gnat 2013 is out!
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 21:39:45 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <kp62li$ece$1@loke.gir.dk>
References: <ko500n$a4v$1@dont-email.me> <lyhahl96b5.fsf@pushface.org>
 <lyd2s99324.fsf@pushface.org> <ko603g$dde$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <32d94173-533a-471e-95a0-abb73a6cdcc2@googlegroups.com>
 <ko8ao8$55i$1@loke.gir.dk> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1305311319150.13043@debian>
 <kob6vc$iil$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <51a9e025$0$9521$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <33025e6c-b893-4c66-98f6-0fb469016583@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1370918386 14734 69.95.181.76 (11 Jun 2013 02:39:46 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 02:39:46 +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
X-Original-Bytes: 2339
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:181827
Date: 2013-06-10T21:39:45-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Adam Beneschan" <adam@irvine.com> wrote in message 
news:33025e6c-b893-4c66-98f6-0fb469016583@googlegroups.com...
> On Saturday, June 1, 2013 4:51:01 AM UTC-7, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>> On 01.06.13 00:07, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>>
>> > Unless the syntax makes it pretty obvious that this is a dummy, 
>> > discarded
>> > parameter, this idea is going nowhere. (And it might very well go 
>> > nowhere
>> > even if the syntax is perfect.)
>>
>> Can you perhaps employ the new subpools mechanism? To provide
>> constraints for an anonymous, "boxed object", we'd write
>>
>>     My_Proc (Obj1, Obj2, Result => <> String'(1..80 => <>));
>>
>> Then, if __ stands for a subpool known only to the compiler
>> such as, ahem, the stack, the expansion is the impossible
>>
>>     My_Proc (Obj1, Obj2, Result => (new(__) String'(1..80 => <>)).all);
>
> I'm beginning to regret opening this subject up.

I feel your pain, after I encouraged it. What part of "really simple" don't 
people understand?

                                    Randy.