TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
Date:
Fri, 24 May 2002 14:41:59 -0500
Reply-To:
Randy Brukardt <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Randy Brukardt <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version:
1.0
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (20 lines)
> OK, I'll agree with you that it's not always meaningless.
> It may be determinable at compile time by code analysis,
> but it can't be trusted at run time.  I still don't see
> much use for it!

Well, it has to exist as all non-limited types have an "=" operation. It if
didn't exist, an access-to-subprogram type couldn't be used to match a
generic formal private type.

So to get rid of it, access-to-subprogram types would have had to be
limited. But there are no (really) limited elementary types, so that could
be a semantic problem.

So, it has to exist, and some reasonable definition has to be made. It
doesn't have to be useful. (We have the same set of issues with unchecked
unions, many of the operations are very meaningful, but have to be provided
anyway.)

            Randy.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2