RE: Proposed change to BC iterator parameters [limitedness]

["amado.alves" <amado.alves@netcabo.pt>]

<<
> I think there are (container) libraries that accept limited element
> types. And some libs that dont can easily (?) be changed in that
> direction. But as I indicated I think it is 'unatural' to store values
> of a limited type. For me it does not make sense to put constants in a
> container. So my advice can only be: rethink your program.

Heh?  Limited is not the same thing as constant.>>

I think the original poster wanted limited for logical constants.

<<It makes perfect sense to store limited objects in containers.>>

Not "perfect" to me ;-)

<<*Some* containers require
copying to get the data in and out of the container;>>

Strictly all containers do. The difference is when. At declaration, at elaboration, at run time...

<<... limited components
do not make sense in *that* case.  But other containers can deal with
limited types just fine.

Why do you think Ada allows arrays of tasks?>>

I don't know. I would be happy with pointers to tasks or some such. For uniformity. You can have an array of exceptions ids, but not of exceptions.

<<An array is a container,>>

I can say any object is a container. An uni-elementary one.

<<...and tasks are about as limited as you can get!>>

Yes, unfortunately.