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!border2.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newspeer1.nac.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed3.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Problem with limited with
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 09:05:23 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <lyob9osa0s.fsf@pushface.org>
References: <lywqodrv51.fsf@pushface.org> <ksun08$tbn$1@dont-email.me>
 <cee34511-bfa7-49e1-a1b1-e7a01b42df58@googlegroups.com>
 <ksv36l$tnc$1@dont-email.me>
 <74eafc92-e3bb-4ce3-bae1-8b2e3430b60d@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="d88aa8a0fafe4f7fb3eb325f8f3d97d0";
 logging-data="6349"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
 posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18LYnOaf6l33GjijIuTmYGkXMSMJnHp1bA="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HJHovvE+LGbT+EQeE8fMcxlqQQU=
 sha1:F4A2cFDpAhIZLKNaWT3UltDej9Q=
X-Original-Bytes: 2247
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:182709
Date: 2013-07-27T09:05:23+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Adam Beneschan <adambeneschan@aol.com> writes:

> On Friday, July 26, 2013 5:17:21 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Carter wrote:
>> On 07/26/2013 03:17 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>> 
>> > C'mon, people.  It should be possible to ask a question about the
>> > language rules by posting a reduced case, without getting comments
>> > about why the poster didn't write his code a different way, or why
>> > the identifiers aren't descriptive, or why a complete working
>> > example wasn't posted or something.
>> 
>> It should be possible to post a reduced example that actually uses
>> the feature that causes the problem.
>
> As someone who often tries to answer (and sometimes asks) questions
> involving language rules, I only want to see the parts of the code
> that are relevant to the language-law question--even if that results
> in an example that (by itself) would be useless in real life.  But
> adding other stuff just gets in the way.

I was modelling my example on Adam's style!