Re: U : Unbounded_String := "bla bla bla"; (was: Is the Writing...)

["Alexandre E. Kopilovitch" <aek@vib.usr.pu.ru>]

"(see below)" <yaldnifb@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > this part of the concern is real, and idea about 'Class seems interesting and
> > perhaps good enough. I think that the angle brackets are actually not needed
> > here, we can simply write:
> > 
> > for Flex'Class'Literal_Conversion use To_Flex;
>
> I was not clear enough. I intended the "<>" to mean that only the predefined
> literal conversion was to be used. Perhaps that is not necessary?

It is desirable option, I just didn't catch it myself. But I doubt that "<>"
here is good: is there a place in Ada where "<>" carries the sense of 
"predefined"?

Actually we may write for that case:

  for Flex'Class'Literal_Conversion use Flex'Literal_Conversion;

It will certainly carry the indended sense, but it is quite long and somehow
indirectly, thus looking as one more idiom. So, I'd prefer your suggestion if
"<>" is already associated with "predefined", but if not (and if there is no
other conventional symbol for "predefined") then I'd stick to the latter (long)
notation.




Alexander Kopilovitch                      aek@vib.usr.pu.ru
Saint-Petersburg
Russia