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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!maths.tcd.ie!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: grassroots thoughts on access types
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 16:16:19 -0500
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wcc6074a6l8.fsf@TheWorld.com>
References: <5d9134c9-a7d4-468e-8685-ebbb393eabea@googlegroups.com>
	<p5kk5i$5fj$1@dont-email.me> <p5kl6u$12m5$1@gioia.aioe.org>
	<p5krq3$103$1@dont-email.me> <wcck1vlex4t.fsf@TheWorld.com>
	<p5l4nl$4hm$1@dont-email.me>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell02.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Trace: pcls7.std.com 1518297379 9657 192.74.137.72 (10 Feb 2018 21:16:19
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 21:16:19 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:igvO+bB8gnQU9TP8X6RUg1Nd3Qk=
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:50375
Date: 2018-02-10T16:16:19-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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

> On 02/09/2018 09:17 PM, Robert A Duff wrote:
>>
>> So you won't use things like "A(X) := A(X) + 1;",
>> where A is a Vector?
>>
>> Or "for X of A loop..."?
>
> The language would be better if it didn't have anonymous access
> types. It follows that it would be better if it didn't have features
> that rely on anonymous access types.

Perhaps, but I don't think you answered my question.
Earlier, you said:

    Anything that requires the use of anonymous access types is bad and
    should not be used.

and I am curious what you meant by that.
Vectors allow syntactic sugar like "A(X) := A(X) + 1;",
and this syntactic sugar relies on access discriminants,
which are of anonymous access types.  Do you avoid using
that syntactic sugar?

I understand that you would prefer a different language
design in this area.  (So would I!)  But given the
language as it is, I use the syntactic sugar.  Do you?

- Bob