From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Why stack can hold indefinite objects but records cannot?
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 22:50:40 +0100
Date: 2017-11-28T22:50:40+01:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ovklng$1oja$1@gioia.aioe.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: ovkkkc$1m51$1@gioia.aioe.org
On 2017-11-28 22:31, Victor Porton wrote:
> But for the stack this is implemented.
No it is not. You must provide constraint. E.g.:
X : String (1..80);
or
X : String := "1234";
> I don't understand why the same cannot be done for records.
Records are just same:
type Foo is record
X : String (1..80);
end record;
You cannot have unconstrained variables, members, objects. As I said,
there is no such thing, and there cannot be. It is incomputable.
--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-28 21:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-28 20:31 Why stack can hold indefinite objects but records cannot? Victor Porton
2017-11-28 20:46 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2017-11-28 21:31 ` Victor Porton
2017-11-28 21:50 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov [this message]
2017-11-28 22:51 ` Randy Brukardt
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox