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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,34d47d048b177d0b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Jon S Anthony Subject: Re: limited/non-limited in Ada95 Date: 1997/10/23 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 285207294 Distribution: world References: <3442C2A3.3781@bix.com> <62n5c3$m8n@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> Organization: PSINet Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-10-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: fjh@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) writes: > Look, Bob Duff has provided constructive proof that what you want can be done > in Ada 95, and apart from the lines quoted above, the only difference to > your source code will be a few occurrences of ".Contents". It is clear > that that is not going to "make a mess of things". Well, that isn't all there is to it. Look, I'm not trying to convince you or Bob or Robert or anyone. Seems much more like you folks are trying to tell me that I should be positively ecstatic or something about the availability of this sort of hack and that I should _happily_ use it in constrast to explicitly forcing reference semantics. It largely is a matter of _opinion_. Wrapping non structured information _just to solve a mechanism problem_ in a structure is IMO a misleading and inappropriate use of that sort of abstraction and the supporting construct. It's a _hack_ as it has _nothing_ to do with what you are trying to represent. Period. It is _equally_ a hack to use explicit reference semantics. However, in the latter case, you are at least using the construct for its _intended_ purpose. IMO, that makes it less of a mess. Both are _messes_ as neither communicates clearly what is really desired and both cause "uglification" of the end result. However, IMO, the wrapping in a structure approach is a greater mess due to its (IMO) inappropriate and misleading nature. > So, do you expect us to just take your word for it? No. Why should I? > Do you really expect us to believe your word, without a scrap of evidence, No. Why should I? > I for one don't believe you. Fine. Can you explain to me why I should believe _you_??? Because it sure sounds like you think I _ought_ to. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Synquiry Technologies, Ltd., Belmont, MA 02178, 617.484.3383 "Nightmares - Ha! The way my life's been going lately, Who'd notice?" -- Londo Mollari