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,FREEMAIL_FROM, MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,b5ab7c96b188b59e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-13 09:48:54 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!diablo.theplanet.net!mephistopheles.news.clara.net!news.clara.net!usenet-fr.net!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: "amado.alves" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: The "()" operator revisited. Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:46:52 -0000 Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1074016060 57868 80.67.180.195 (13 Jan 2004 17:47:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:47:40 +0000 (UTC) To: Return-Path: content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: The "()" operator revisited. Thread-Index: AcPZ9gqZe3BwsxbiRB2WZSLGOcFMFAAAysCU X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jan 2004 17:46:56.0320 (UTC) FILETIME=[3C9A3C00:01C3D9FD] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p5 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4371 Date: 2004-01-13T17:46:52+00:00 <<...To get something that could match a generic array parameter would = require a lot of restrictions on abstract arrays, in particular that the indice = types would have to be abstract discrete types. This would rule out abstract arrays such as what we see in this example.>> Which would be unfortunate. One solution would to add abstract arrays to = the set of generic parameters. This whole proposal should articulate = with other proposals: user-defined ":=3D", implicit conversion. Also, = there was already a thread on the current issue, some months ago. = Implicit conversion could solve the problems of having non-discrete = values for the index, and literals. All together this would be a really = big change to the language and there is no way it's going to make it in = Ada 2005. As someone already said, better write the language from = scratch. It is a fascinating issue, but academic. The alternative is to have abstract arrays as a severely restricted = class (perhaps a subclass of arrays). Actually the original proposal so = it seems. But I doubt it makes in time to Ada 2005. In sum, I must have too much free time on my hands to be posting this, = because I don't believe any currently appearing proposal is going to = make it in time for Ada 2005, and I fear Ada 2005 is going to be the = last Ada. With luck we'll be designing a new language, incorporating the = lessons learnt from Ada 1983-2005.