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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,24d7acf9b853aac8
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Natasha Kerensikova <lithiumcat@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: S-expression I/O in Ada
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 10:24:16 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <slrni71umg.dki.lithiumcat@sigil.instinctive.eu>
References: <547afa6b-731e-475f-a7f2-eaefefb25861@k8g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
 <slrni6lg3e.1efq.lithiumcat@sigil.instinctive.eu>
 <i4em7q$1pcu$1@adenine.netfront.net>
 <slrni6nem3.1efq.lithiumcat@sigil.instinctive.eu>
 <i4h7ir$294b$1@adenine.netfront.net>
 <slrni6ppl0.dki.lithiumcat@sigil.instinctive.eu>
 <slrni6q12v.dki.lithiumcat@sigil.instinctive.eu>
 <1llx0f5m88xj7$.srf8azjmykl0.dlg@40tude.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 10:24:16 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx01.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="Mda950WjNwNLAFOE7yJXQw";
	logging-data="9910"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18vdfCZ5EL/SObABl8RpK8W"
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.9p1 (FreeBSD)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jjnQM7gmbJr92VQHChbCQFIlye0=
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13598
Date: 2010-08-22T10:24:16+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2010-08-19, Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:16:00 +0000 (UTC), Natasha Kerensikova wrote:
>> And if there is no other way, would it make sense to get rid of the
>> discriminant with something like:
>> 
>> type S_Expression is tagged null record;
>
> The type tag in S_Expression'Class is a kind of discriminant. You replaced
> one with another.

That's more or less the idea: it seems I can't escape using a tag, and I
thought having only a tag might be simpler and cleaner than having both
a tag and a real discriminant, hence my proposition.

Was I misled there?


Thanks for your help,
Natacha