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: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Simon Wright Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada.Containers.Indefinite_Holders and limited types Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 07:52:18 +0000 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="809c12c8e4eb0dcea18732cda63fc980"; logging-data="24415"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/RPolh58rx+rTyLUxWmV20gaZV4Ir2PsQ=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (darwin) Cancel-Lock: sha1:F530SKgTjDlCJWevz3yTKf7A9VE= sha1:ingvQeoeoZPKqqwqDopKDzQw7q4= Xref: feeder.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:48903 Date: 2017-11-15T07:52:18+00:00 List-Id: Victor Porton writes: > Why Ada.Containers.Indefinite_Holders (as of Ada2012) accepts > "private" Element_Type? I would like it be "limited private" instead. > > The particular reason I want this is to hold Timing_Event inside an > indefinite holder inside a record. Because there are Holder operations that allow copying of the Element_Type, perhaps; e.g. Copy. Why not use "access Timing_Event'Class" or suchlike?