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!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Why stack can hold indefinite objects but records cannot? Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 22:50:40 +0100 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: 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/52.4.0 Content-Language: en-US X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:49224 Date: 2017-11-28T22:50:40+01:00 List-Id: 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