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=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1116ece181be1aea
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-08 07:49:34 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-alcarin.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail
From: Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada?
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 16:58:56 +0200
Message-ID: <si88ov82nepti4j9dqs9lg2ja0k7bmrnc1@4ax.com>
References: 
 <slrnbnjv9h.f3.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <Y1Aeb.10094$kD3.173@nwrdny03.gnilink.net> <3F7B1076.8060106@comcast.net>
 <5mknnv4u96qqudrt4bd8n4t1cljp2fjlp8@4ax.com> <3F7C810E.7070100@comcast.net>
 <blklut$dala6$2@ID-77047.news.uni-berlin.de> <3F7E25C1.1060509@comcast.net>
 <blm0as$dkoad$1@ID-77047.news.uni-berlin.de> <3F7ECF99.8090004@comcast.net>
 <8qm2ov43djse19is7pk79jf5p7ifvvuff2@4ax.com> <3F841C3D.30007@comcast.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-alcarin.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.111)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1065624572 18206839 212.79.194.111 (16 [77047])
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:464
Date: 2003-10-08T16:58:56+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:16:53 GMT, "Robert I. Eachus"
<rieachus@comcast.net> wrote:

>Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>
>> What if 31 character length string is required? Now we have answered
>> the question, why Bounded_String was made generic - to avoid arbitrary
>> limitations like the number 30 in the example.
>
>I may be misunderstanding you.

Yes

>If you may be faced with a 31 character 
>string (or any arbitrary length) then you should be using 
>Unbounded_String.

Come on! In 80% cases when I do not know the exact length I am not
forced either to turn to generics or to heap-allocated objects.
Conventional String works fine:

Buffer : String (1..Whatsoever);

Why should I use Unbounded_String? If this works with singular objects
and with records of objects why on earth it should not with arrays?

The point is:

A clear deficiency is an inability to constrain [*all*] the array
elements through a discriminant.

This in turn makes a non-generic implementation of Bounded_String less
usable. An example of use:

type Array_Of_Bounded_Strings (Max_Length : Natural) is
   array (...) of Bounded_String (Max_Length);

Where is any limit here?

---
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de