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!nntp.giganews.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.erje.net!us.feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.ecp.fr!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: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 12:35:05 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <mn6h4a$coi$1@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$1@dont-email.me>
 <mn4jj1$n50$2@loke.gir.dk> <864mllqv7c.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rrsoftware.com
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1435944906 13074 24.196.82.226 (3 Jul 2015 17:35:06 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 17:35:06 +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:193890
Date: 2015-07-03T12:35:05-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Stephen Leake" <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote in message 
news:864mllqv7c.fsf@stephe-leake.org...
> "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:
>
>> "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.
>
> He should not be using a bounded string type; that's the point.
>
> Using a bounded string always involves a hidden length limit; if it's
> too small, you'll hit it sometime, if it's too big, you're wasting 
> storage.

Agreed, but in that case he probably should be using an unbounded string. 
Let the compiler do the work, don't write memory management code yourself 
(you'll always get it wrong).

                            Randy.