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!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Bounded String question
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 15:32:22 -0700
Organization: Also freenews.netfront.net; news.tornevall.net;
 news.eternal-september.org
Message-ID: <n233te$1h5$1@dont-email.me>
References: <7ba56b33-28d4-42d2-8b9b-5ad9f5beab8b@googlegroups.com>
 <87io597447.fsf@theworld.com>
 <66278720-249a-4191-a908-bb840e7f3ccc@googlegroups.com>
 <faede672-7158-4c24-9647-8bd6f0cb5742@googlegroups.com>
 <n1vtm0$db7$1@dont-email.me>
 <d3958370-a3c5-4aac-9abf-bc9ddc873494@googlegroups.com>
 <n20947$v1d$2@dont-email.me>
 <272d6ba6-869f-427d-9395-51dd1d480a3c@googlegroups.com>
 <n2307j$ijb$1@loke.gir.dk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 22:30:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="caa759af2a9c666aec02942f6fe5abd6";
	logging-data="1573"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/DfRGBArxyc1SFF2ZDfQvI82TO5Ub11aA="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.3.0
In-Reply-To: <n2307j$ijb$1@loke.gir.dk>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/53c0agsOSmg9BaVBae++ht4xR0=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:28346
Date: 2015-11-12T15:32:22-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 11/12/2015 02:27 PM, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> 
> 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).

How about just cleaning up the existing rules on what is static? That seems
worthwhile in itself. If that's done, perhaps then expanding the things that are
pre-elaborable would be acceptably complicated.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Sons of a silly person."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail
02