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!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada Annoyances
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 21:43:56 +0200
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <oje6pq$1inn$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <1ac5a44b-4423-443a-a7bb-2864d9abe78f@googlegroups.com>
 <d6b02354-93b5-4364-9fe5-3d22b47156e9@googlegroups.com>
 <be1619b4-2220-4287-8e67-1af32377d3f7@googlegroups.com>
 <oijkah$mnh$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
 <mfKdnbiIEvWP9cvEnZ2dnUU7-fnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <3df6404a-588d-4e2d-a189-1d1e32ce9f5d@googlegroups.com>
 <ojc1n6$j2f$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
 <73b4a9bd-1f3b-42b9-9ef7-5303b0a88794@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: MajGvm9MbNtGBKE7r8NgYA.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.1
Content-Language: en-US
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:47269
Date: 2017-07-03T21:43:56+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2017-07-03 19:47, Jere wrote:
> On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 8:04:56 PM UTC-4, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>> (3) Since prefixed notation does automatic dereferencing and referencing
>> (that is, .all and 'Access), allowing it on all types caused levels of
>> ambiguity (and potentially infinite regress). It was easier to just define
>> it on tagged types, which didn't have those issues. Perhaps it could have
>> been made to work, but it was more work for a feature that already had
>> significant opposition; probably it would have been dropped rather than
>> getting more complicated. (Sound like a broken record??)
> 
> Was there any consideration to having prefixed notation to
> apply to all record types and add a way to denote that a private
> type is a record type (there should be many ways to do that)?
> We don't really need it on all types, just record types.

This falls under the category "abstract record interface". You declare 
that a type implements the interface. Members ".XXX" are interface's 
abstract operations to be implemented as procedures/functions/components.

You know already the answer: not to happen.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de