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: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!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: Bounded String question
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 15:19:36 -0600
Organization: JSA Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <n22vp9$ic1$1@loke.gir.dk>
References: <7ba56b33-28d4-42d2-8b9b-5ad9f5beab8b@googlegroups.com>
 <87io597447.fsf@theworld.com>
 <66278720-249a-4191-a908-bb840e7f3ccc@googlegroups.com>
 <faede672-7158-4c24-9647-8bd6f0cb5742@googlegroups.com>
 <n1vtm0$db7$1@dont-email.me>
 <d3958370-a3c5-4aac-9abf-bc9ddc873494@googlegroups.com>
 <n20947$v1d$2@dont-email.me>
 <272d6ba6-869f-427d-9395-51dd1d480a3c@googlegroups.com>
 <n22m8h$92u$1@dont-email.me>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rrsoftware.com
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1447363177 18817 24.196.82.226 (12 Nov 2015 21:19:37 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:19:37 +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: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:28341
Date: 2015-11-12T15:19:36-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org> wrote in message 
news:n22m8h$92u$1@dont-email.me...
> On 11/12/2015 09:59 AM, Serge Robyns wrote:
>>
>> From your post, I do understand you are an authority when it comes to
>> language rules.  Am I so mistaken to hope that today's compilers could be
>> smarter in preelaboration besides plain strings and scalars?  Is this
>> something that could be looked at in the next Ada revision?
>
> I'm not nearly as much of an authority as Bob Duff, who has commented on 
> this
> thread, or the other ARG members ("language lawyers" in common parlance) 
> who
> post here. The ARM tries to not limit implementation approaches and to 
> stick to
> things that compiler writers know how to do. The latter tends to grow with 
> time,
> so one can always hope for the list of pre-elaborable constructs to grow.
> However, Null_Bounded_String is a deferred constant of a private type, so 
> I
> wouldn't hold my breath.

See the now dead AI12-0175-1/01 for how it could (relatively) easily be 
accomplished. But that's considered to be too much mechanism, and it won't 
go anywhere.

                                         Randy.