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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a5cdfaf37bba8923 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: mheaney@ni.net (Matthew Heaney) Subject: Re: Design of Ada.Strings.Bounded Date: 1997/07/14 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 256806584 References: <5q4mel$16r$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> Organization: Estormza Software Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-07-14T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , kst@sd.aonix.com (Keith Thompson) wrote: >I do wonder, though, why the maximum length of a Bounded_String was >made a generic parameter rather than a discriminant. Thus, rather than >Was this approach considered? If so, why was it rejected? The reasons for the choice are discussed in the Rationale. Also, from AARM 95 A.4.4 (1.b): Reason: The bound of a bounded-length string is specified as a parameter to a generic, versus as the value for a discriminant, because of the inappropriateness of assignement and equality of discriminated types for the copying and comparison of bounded strings. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Heaney Software Development Consultant (818) 985-1271