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: 103376,1a52c822fc0dbb23 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail From: Robert A Duff Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Rational for not making cursor tagged in Containers Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 21:14:00 -0400 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Message-ID: References: <1176998738.656903.141250@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <1177010938.200523.325290@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <1a8y2vakorfhx.225uqh4hifpd$.dlg@40tude.net> <1xmzi7newnilp.23m3zze8h9yi.dlg@40tude.net> <1177066583.5876.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1177080147.5876.87.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1q1kx2jlcvnuj.ck0711mj4few$.dlg@40tude.net> <1177097829.26685.36.camel@localhost.localdomain> NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1177204440 7793 192.74.137.71 (22 Apr 2007 01:14:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 01:14:00 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix) Cancel-Lock: sha1:tuUad1SbCauzLMrSeWIU2iaShWo= Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15203 Date: 2007-04-21T21:14:00-04:00 List-Id: "Randy Brukardt" writes: > "Robert A Duff" wrote in message > news:wccbqhizsh0.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com... > ... >> I also thought (and continue to think) that array types should be >> allowed to have discriminants. The quote above was a jab at people >> who thought otherwise. I lost that argument. > > That would have been me. I think I was arguing simply from the > implementation complexity standpoint Implementation complexity for existing (Ada 83) implementations. A newly-designed implementation would have had no trouble. 20-20 hindsight! I claim that it's much easier to implement Ada 95 than it is to implement Ada 83 and then adapt that implementation to Ada 95. The same applies to 95/2005. I sweated blood implementing the AI-318 features (limited constructor functions) for Ada 2005 in GNAT, but I'm pretty sure that AI-318 would be no extra trouble in a from-scratch implementation of Ada 2005. >... (my comment to Dmitry about the amount > of code needed to implement parameter passing would be a lot worse with this > capability). I think your argument was that such things should just be > implemented as records, but that leads to the explosion of possibilities > (now every array might be implemented in a number of new ways on top of the > old ways). I'm not sure I'd make that argument again. (I know I wouldn't be > against 'in out' parameters in functions again. The use of access types to > replace them is disgusting.) Agreed. - Bob