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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d35129bfe20357c8,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-29 14:22:46 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!213.56.195.71!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!enst!enst.fr!not-for-mail
From: ANH_VO@udlp.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re[2]: Limited Type Access - Again
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:14:21 -0600
Organization: ENST, France
Sender: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org
Message-ID: <mailman.1004394165.6249.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 1004394165 63897 137.194.161.2 (29 Oct 2001 22:22:45
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 22:22:45 +0000 (UTC)
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Return-Path: <ANH_VO@udlp.com>
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part
Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org
X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:comp.lang.ada-request@ada.eu.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://ada.eu.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada>,
	<mailto:comp.lang.ada-request@ada.eu.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail<->news gateway <comp.lang.ada.ada.eu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://ada.eu.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada>,
	<mailto:comp.lang.ada-request@ada.eu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ada.eu.org/pipermail/comp.lang.ada/>
Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org
X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15377
Date: 2001-10-29T14:14:21-06:00

If equality and assignment are allowed in this case, then it is the back door
for comparing and assigning objects of limited type such as task type and
projected type. I think this door should be locked. In addition, comparing or
assignment two objects of a task type does not make sense. In fact, the language
prohibits two objects of a limited type from being compared or assigned. This is
the reason why equality and assignment of a limited type are prohibited.

Anh Vo 

____________________Reply Separator____________________
Subject:    Re: Limited Type Access - Again
Author: "Matthew Heaney" <mheaney@on2.com>
Date:       10/29/01 4:25 PM


<ANH_VO@udlp.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1004389122.4372.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org...
> It looks to me that equality and assignment do not make sense at all.

I don't understand your objection.  The default equality operator for record
types is defined as the conjunction of equality of all the record
components.  What behavior were you expecting?