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: a07f3367d7,4d7a3c23c070b002
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!d4g2000yqa.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: New release of AdaControl (1.11r4)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 05:49:44 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <fea88453-8a3e-42df-8787-acdb87d21cc4@d4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
References: <kc9f2h.3r1.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
 <e6d16d19-8d42-47f2-afd9-c90bca2ca2b2@h18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
	<3tpf2h.4oi.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
 <c669ad4c-f133-499b-93de-1e58bf4a71c2@h8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
	<h2i8r8$jl6$1@infosun2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 77.198.58.253
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1246538984 17054 127.0.0.1 (2 Jul 2009 12:49:44
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 12:49:44 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: d4g2000yqa.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:6800
Date: 2009-07-02T05:49:44-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2 juil, 14:23, Peter Hermann <s...@spam.de> wrote:
> doubt.
>
> why not use ordinary enumeration types, maybe indirectly, for that purpose?

Beceause an enumeration cannot be extended after it is declared

I know there was a proposal for Ada 2005, to allow enumerated type to
be extendable, but this was rejected

Sometime enumerations are just itended to defines a set of identifier,
which are to be interpreted by some applications. There is then no
need for any ordering relation (this aspect of enumeration is not
meaningful, thus not required) and these identifiers are better
defined in the child packages which indeed require these identifiers
to be inroducted. When it is, it is cleaner to not overload one
package specification with what is to belong to child packages with
apply or extend the root package. This make the specification clearer
to understand and makes relation between package and segmentation of
the domain, clearer as well.

But my notice about it was just a personal side note