Re: Ada2005

[Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)]

In article <nxKR7.58838$xS6.95364@www.newsranger.com>, Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com> writes:
> In article <9v7q8r$1f5$1@infosun2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>, Peter Hermann says...
>>
>>Carsten Freining <freining@informatik.uni-jena.de> wrote:
>>> Best example is the object oriented part, because it is not possible to have
>>> constants as components.
>>
>>Compiler maintainers may insert the already existing keywork "constant"
>>in coffee break time.
> 
> Why would anyone want to? Isn't it rather stupid to allocate space in several
> objects to a field that will always be the same? I understand why C++ does this:
> they don't have packages to put their constants into. So if one wants to
> associate a constant with a class, there is no choice but to do it this way and
> waste the space. But in Ada we don't have that problem, so why do we need to
> duplicate their nasty hack soultion to it?

This could be used when some future version of the code would allow
modification but the current one does not.  That sort of issue,
however, could also be handled with a good source code analysis tool,
looking for locations that assign to the field.  The source code
analysis tool is probably better for such a temporary condition,
since it get people familiar with the technique.