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: 103376,73175d2d01a1b1dd
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.8.229 with SMTP id u5mr25906953pba.0.1317083747662;
        Mon, 26 Sep 2011 17:35:47 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 lh7ni5629pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!xmission!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: subprogram must not be deeper than access type
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:35:46 -0400
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wcc39fiakkd.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <slrnj7trhq.i18.lithiumcat@sigil.instinctive.eu>
 <818752663338654817.822041rmhost.bauhaus-maps.arcor.de@news.arcor.de>
 <slrnj80ieh.i18.lithiumcat@sigil.instinctive.eu>
 <wccmxdr772s.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <j5qieh$92b$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1317083746 7627 192.74.137.71 (27 Sep 2011 00:35:46
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 00:35:46 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4azhh7mvdHucXM5qFqY19K6iuGc=
Xref: news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18144
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: 2011-09-26T20:35:46-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Jeffrey Carter <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org> writes:

> On 09/26/2011 06:43 AM, Robert A Duff wrote:
>> Natasha Kerensikova<lithiumcat@gmail.com>  writes:
>>
>>> Having read the Rationale 2005, I understand now that naming an access
>>> type is far from being equivalent to text replacement.
>>
>> Yeah.  That's a language design flaw.
>
> I think anonymous types are the language design flaw.

Why?

I don't agree on that point, but surely you would agree that IF a
language allows anonymous types, they ought to behave like similar named
types.  Right?

And surely you would agree that IF a language allows (say) anonymous
array types, it should also allow anonymous record types.
All or nothing.

- Bob