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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,5afd69f1373c41cc
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,CP1252
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!t21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hibou57_=28Yannick_Duch=EAne=29?=
 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Interfacing with C ; an ununsed fields dilemma
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 06:21:01 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <9d9b5fe7-c990-4c67-9c6e-1dacd484b296@t21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <faaa30f7-d69b-4c73-ae70-9b01d3804077@d32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
	<5a416858-4a52-412d-8051-6dadb5eadb2c@t21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
	<d8ed3a51-0762-4e1e-b5a9-13b727dfc76c@l31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
	<4a4ca38d$0$31340$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 77.198.58.253
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1246540862 23504 127.0.0.1 (2 Jul 2009 13:21:02
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 13:21:02 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: t21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com; posting-host=77.198.58.253;
	posting-account=vrfdLAoAAAAauX_3XwyXEwXCWN3A1l8D
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
	fr),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:6801
Date: 2009-07-02T06:21:01-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.adacor=
e.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 : =93 After all, interesting types are usually private, and we
need some way for clients to create and initialize objects. =94

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.