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,ace9bff8eb84e5b1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Generic Zero Length Array
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 09:27:26 -0500
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wccablrpx2p.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: 
 <9b771018-fb0b-42eb-ae00-12ee3eda69b2@p43g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
 <2446841a-8bb0-46bc-94ed-099e4e0ca74c@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
 <fpndva$q2f$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
 <7cd05c2a-d67a-4623-a9dc-67e357877f48@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1203776846 28513 192.74.137.71 (23 Feb 2008 14:27:26
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 14:27:26 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:iYsUhEXBHF+71BCLOeGfl0conF4=
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20025
Date: 2008-02-23T09:27:26-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com> writes:

> Way back before Ada 95, someone made a proposed language array to add
> a "null array" aggregate to the language, so that you could write an
> aggregate to represent a zero-element array without needing a fake
> value for the elements.  I thought this was a great idea and could
> never understand why it wasn't adopted.  It would have solved the
> problem here.  But the <> syntax of Ada 2005 obviates the need for
> something like that.

I still think it's a language design flaw that you can't write a
zero-element or one-element positional aggregate.

>...I don't think we need "null record" (i.e. in
> aggregates) any more either, although certainly nobody is going to
> suggest removing it.

Why don't we need that?

> [Actually, there's one case where you still can't specify a null array
> aggregate, and that's where the index type is either "mod 1" or an
> enumeration type with one value:
>
>          type Enum is (This_One);
>          type Arr is array (Enum range <>) of Anything;
>
> Now go ahead and try to specify a zero-element array aggregate of type
> Arr.  You can't.

Right.  Not just aggregates -- you can't create any zero-element array
of type Arr.

>...But this is a pretty pathological case so it's not
> worth trying to change the language for it.]

If it were worth it, what would be the best change?
I suppose ranges could be characterized by 'First/'Length,
instead of 'First/'Last.  And eliminate 'Last from the language.
Or else say 'Last raises Constraint_Error if 'First = 'Base'First
and 'Length = 0.

- Bob