From: "Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Subject: Re: Unknown discriminants with nested records
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 10:33:56 +0200
Date: 2011-06-18T10:33:56+02:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <op.vw9jeu14ule2fv@douda-yannick> (raw)
In-Reply-To: wccwrgkldf7.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com
Le Fri, 17 Jun 2011 16:50:52 +0200, Robert A Duff
<bobduff@shell01.theworld.com> a écrit:
> Jeff Carter is correct about the original reason for the (<>) feature
> -- to fix the generic contract model, which was broken in Ada 83.
This also had the nice side effect to allow to define types forcing
entities initialization.
(if that was really as Jeff said with Ada 83, that was indeed a sad hole)
--
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [Epigrams on
Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [Idem]
Java: Write once, Never revisit
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-06-18 8:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-06-16 23:53 Unknown discriminants with nested records Simon Belmont
2011-06-17 0:39 ` Adam Beneschan
2011-06-17 1:48 ` Simon Belmont
2011-06-17 14:50 ` Robert A Duff
2011-06-18 8:33 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) [this message]
2011-06-20 16:16 ` Adam Beneschan
2011-06-17 6:03 ` Jeffrey Carter
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox