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!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Alejandro R. Mosteo" <alejandro@mosteo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Unknown constraints and type composition
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 11:37:46 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <pg01da$fpp$2@dont-email.me>
References: <pfu23n$csb$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 09:37:47 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="28f9812d2e4a4d571e566a6a5e6288c5";
	logging-data="16185"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/wiFdoz7XcDll8jFAag9iP"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rzdamI70OyqH+RFWKoNtzJMrvoQ=
In-Reply-To: <pfu23n$csb$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:53119
Date: 2018-06-15T11:37:46+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 14/06/2018 17:37, Alejandro R. Mosteo wrote:

Thanks everyone for your comments. I think every approach was different 
and had some good food for thought. It seems things where more or less as 
I figured but seeing how different people goes about it reassures me.

Alex.

> I think I have read somewhere that types with unknown constraints are a 
> good way of ensuring you (or your users) don't end with uninitialized 
> values:
> 
> types Whatever (<>) is [limited] private;
> 
> function Create return Whatever;
> 
> This seems nice at first sight but when these types have any likelihood 
> of ending as members of another type you will hit the "unconstrained 
> member" problem.
> 
> A workaround then is to use a Indefinite_Holder, but that's an imposition 
> on your clients (ugly). If your type is furthermore limited, then you 
> must use pointers and consider providing controlledness and deallocation 
> in the enclosing type (uglier).
> 
> Right now I'm on the point of a new design where I have many interrelated 
> types that require initialization calls (it's a C binding). And, as 
> always, I'm unsure of the way to go, or if I'm missing another technique 
> without shortcomings. Your thoughts if you have any on this issue are 
> much appreciated.
> 
> Alex.