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-Thread: a07f3367d7,1449b098788729b8
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.flashnewsgroups.com-b7.4zTQh5tI3A!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: prefix of dereference must be a name?
References: <u4osuzlxw.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <3fe4b8a8-daf9-4161-84e2-ff230a2e7afd@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>
From: Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 08:04:56 -0400
Message-ID: <uljm5xdlj.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (windows-nt)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4gNUYNPgG5y9SfXjxBLb/Nx+HH0=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@flashnewsgroups.com
Organization: FlashNewsgroups.com
X-Trace: 1611a4a72ddebe197caa732198
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7483
Date: 2009-07-31T08:04:56-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Yannick Duchêne Hibou57 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> writes:

> On 30 juil, 09:09, Stephen Leake <stephen_le...@stephe-leake.org>
> wrote:
>> [...]
>> A.all := (C + B).all;
>>
>> What's the rationale for this?
>>
> About it, ARM 4.1 says:
> (2) name ::=
>      direct_name | explicit_dereference
>    | indexed_component | slice
>    | selected_component | attribute_reference
>    | type_conversion | function_call
>    | character_literal
>
> But you can see in the latter excerpt, that “ function_call ” appears,
> but not “ expression ”.

Looking in the annotated language reference manual, I find this in
4.1, about what could be allowed as the prefix for .all:

17.f
          Discussion: Actually, it would be reasonable to allow any
          primary in front of .all, since only the value is needed, but
          that would be a bit radical.

I guess that makes me a radical, which is nothing new :).

And yesterday's "radical" is today's "progressive". That note is from
the Ada 95 changes; time to move on!

But as you say, I want more than a primary, I want an expression. Hmm.
"primary" includes "qualified_expression". That would save me from
declaring Copy above. Although when things are class-wide the necessary
type qualifier can be quite long.

I still don't see the fundamental problem.

-- 
-- Stephe