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!gegeweb.org!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: Bounded String question
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 15:27:14 -0600
Organization: JSA Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <n2307j$ijb$1@loke.gir.dk>
References: <7ba56b33-28d4-42d2-8b9b-5ad9f5beab8b@googlegroups.com>
 <87io597447.fsf@theworld.com>
 <66278720-249a-4191-a908-bb840e7f3ccc@googlegroups.com>
 <faede672-7158-4c24-9647-8bd6f0cb5742@googlegroups.com>
 <n1vtm0$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>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rrsoftware.com
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1447363635 19051 24.196.82.226 (12 Nov 2015 21:27:15 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:27:15 +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:28342
Date: 2015-11-12T15:27:14-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Serge Robyns" <serge.robyns@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:272d6ba6-869f-427d-9395-51dd1d480a3c@googlegroups.com...
...
> 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?

We already did, at our last meeting (AI12-0175-1/01), and it was soundly 
rejected as too complicated for the problem being solved. (As the author of 
the proposal, it was hard to disagree; I had expected the solution to be 
simpler than it worked out -- but the main problem is the inconsistency of 
the existing staticness rules (lots of things that should be allowed for 
static strings are not allowed, and fixing that makes the proposal feel 
heavy even if it isn't really).

I'd be surprised if we revisited it. The main problem being that Pure and 
Preelaborated units are far less useful than originally thought. (I've never 
successfully made any of my packages Pure or Preelaborated). It's unclear 
whether it is worth spending effort on what is essentially a failed feature. 
(We do anyway, but I doubt that we'd do anything major, especially as Pure 
is tangled up in the Annex E features - most relaxations cause problems for 
Annex E.)

                                    Randy.