Re: Interfacing with C ; an ununsed fields dilemma

["Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

On 2 juil, 14:09, Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauh...@futureapps.de> wrote:

> In case you are using current Ada, have you considered
> making your type limited an use a "construtor function"?http://www.adacore.com/2007/05/28/gem-3/

But this still allow an automatic instantion without the required
initialization.

On the other hand, I like this sentence in the document you've
pointed : “ After all, interesting types are usually private, and we
need some way for clients to create and initialize objects. ”

I oftenly feel the same, and I would probably have choose this design
if I were to create a specification from the ground up (perhaps I'm
driven into error by the existing C interface). Reading it in this
context, make me think that perhaps I should use a more abstract
specification, thus make these types (there are numerous records of
the same kind) fully private and define numerous accessors to each of
these types. I will no more bother to declare these unused fields, as
this would be now in the private part.