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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no 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: "G.B." <bauhaus@futureapps.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: operation can be dispatching in only one type
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 12:19:02 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <n3jvim$oqc$1@dont-email.me>
References: <b4aee46c-7dbb-4906-99c5-f4f8e9876fc6@googlegroups.com>
 <n2viun$sb0$1@dont-email.me>
 <04eb6626-644b-4b16-a329-c35659a9fbe2@googlegroups.com>
 <n325f8$kq0$1@dont-email.me> <dbjve4F188rU1@mid.individual.net>
 <n32lqq$sqm$1@dont-email.me> <1ephv5ugr5mib$.9ehadf3dddct$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <c3827fcd-6b2e-4c64-8901-1e91030f1c84@googlegroups.com>
 <1nf8wc05tjtvf$.1ctjb9hsr0qsp.dlg@40tude.net>
 <8132c558-aec2-41f4-8024-4a75a2d497ae@googlegroups.com>
 <17c8a7kqoxvff.aa1raqev6xlu$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <75a4c7be-391d-4e5d-9e6e-23607132c943@googlegroups.com>
 <n377k1$36j$1@dont-email.me>
 <343b78d1-c1ba-40d3-af80-e18de45f2e3d@googlegroups.com>
 <n37sup$s1k$1@dont-email.me> <wkw9b1sq4mg0.14cvqyjh3bit8.dlg@40tude.net>
 <n39jt9$292$1@dont-email.me> <11das66l3vhic$.1stkau3dqp6ld.dlg@40tude.net>
 <n3ii6l$bom$1@loke.gir.dk> <6y03ogx0fsk8$.n0ldd6cud931$.dlg@40tude.net>
Reply-To: nonlegitur@futureapps.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 11:16:38 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="b96887e80893c84a90c3007226ca0d1c";
	logging-data="25420"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19NhU/SUFOmJdvpDJFCBYz24ENZL8i/s5E="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
In-Reply-To: <6y03ogx0fsk8$.n0ldd6cud931$.dlg@40tude.net>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bB4Mhf4Yx5ljrNBDhkd7ZGB2/Rg=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:28611
Date: 2015-12-01T12:19:02+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 01.12.15 09:46, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 16:22:12 -0600, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>
> some
> I/O protocol. Countless requests here in c.l.a. concerning instructing the
> compiler to do it right is a proof.
>
> But when it becomes the problem space the compiler knows absolutely nothing
> about handling proxy objects located in the memory. A row of a DB record
> result set is a record for which the compiler has no slightest idea how to
> map it (onto the DB environment, connection, cursor).

Compiler vendors convincing the bosses of the database vending
families to agree on giving up control over I/O and representation,
now that will be quite something! ;-)

> There is no reason why indexing or record member access
> should be less efficient when a user-defined implementation allowed, but
> not actually used.

Sounds a bit like user defined aspects of compilation? What
guarantees would the compiler be able to generate that user
defined mechanics will work at the same level of assurance
as that of "regular" records?