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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!gandalf.srv.welterde.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What do you think about this?
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 16:51:38 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <mn4jj1$n50$2@loke.gir.dk>
References: <9894cde7-2cf8-4060-be65-857812ad7b09@googlegroups.com>
 <mm7310$4jk$1@dont-email.me>
 <17436268-aceb-461f-bdcf-eee8436cd0e6@googlegroups.com>
 <mm9e4f$n4e$2@dont-email.me>
 <fa1fea48-bdb6-446c-8a41-a2f34a55ed16@googlegroups.com>
 <d65db4db-ada4-4705-8cec-37a994536f8b@googlegroups.com>
 <86y4jaqzdx.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <dddbc06b-c30f-4923-85b6-f3a378982238@googlegroups.com>
 <86oak5qulb.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <mmeoq7$p9f$1@dont-email.me>
 <86k2usq66p.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <mmhd5h$qef$1@dont-email.me>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rrsoftware.com
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1435881889 23712 24.196.82.226 (3 Jul 2015 00:04:49 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 00:04:49 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:193879
Date: 2015-07-02T16:51:38-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org> wrote in message 
news:mmhd5h$qef$1@dont-email.me...
> On 06/25/2015 06:16 AM, Stephen Leake wrote:
>> "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org> writes:
>>
>>> This is a terrible idea. As compiler writer, ARG member, and ARM editor 
>>> Brukardt
>>> said recently in another thread, anonymous access types are evil.
>>
>> This is one place they are very useful.
>
> Still evil and to be avoided, even here.
>
>>> I would even
>>> argue against a named access type for this, since unbounded strings are
>>> available. In this case, the OP has an instance of bounded strings 
>>> available and
>>> would probably want to use that.
>>
>> That makes them non-constant, which is certainly _not_ the intent!
>
> Declaring the array constant deals with that.

Exactly. Why make things more complex than necessary? There's a place for 
the access-to-constant solution (although I'd use a named type), but it 
isn't here since the OP is using an bounded string type for all of his 
strings.

                      Randy.