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 18:07:41 -0600
Organization: JSA Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <n239ke$u0d$1@loke.gir.dk>
References: <7ba56b33-28d4-42d2-8b9b-5ad9f5beab8b@googlegroups.com>
 <87io597447.fsf@theworld.com>
 <66278720-249a-4191-a908-bb840e7f3ccc@googlegroups.com>
 <faede672-7158-4c24-9647-8bd6f0cb5742@googlegroups.com>
 <n1vtm0$db7$1@dont-email.me>
 <d3958370-a3c5-4aac-9abf-bc9ddc873494@googlegroups.com>
 <n20947$v1d$2@dont-email.me>
 <272d6ba6-869f-427d-9395-51dd1d480a3c@googlegroups.com>
 <n2307j$ijb$1@loke.gir.dk> <n233te$1h5$1@dont-email.me>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rrsoftware.com
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1447373262 30733 24.196.82.226 (13 Nov 2015 00:07:42 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 00:07:42 +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:28348
Date: 2015-11-12T18:07:41-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org> wrote in message 
news:n233te$1h5$1@dont-email.me...
> 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.

That's essentially what I proposed (with aspects to allow private types to 
be potentially static requiring the full type to be potentially static). 
Without the private type mechanism, it isn't worth much (both Address and 
Bounded_String are private, after all, and so are most user-defined types as 
Ada programmers tend to take the ADT idea seriously). But it just got too 
complicated. Without that, you just get discrete and string types as static, 
and there isn't much to change with those.

                                           Randy.