From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Jeffrey R. Carter" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: gnoga build fails on Mac Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 11:09:49 +0200 Organization: Also freenews.netfront.net; news.tornevall.net; news.eternal-september.org Message-ID: References: <4bbbd09e-e14f-46f5-a510-bdf0c17eba8fo@googlegroups.com> <57adcbd8-4583-4c0f-8bdf-1ac8bd6c6913o@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 09:09:50 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="34b976d2fd9d3a70b66937eac0efa0a7"; logging-data="27016"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18bR9CvOnq0wYSoQ9jVlKrdLZK7+IkFWJU=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:0/GnOCG9UoDDPUtqxdC7/V9i7Dk= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:59321 List-Id: On 7/3/20 2:23 AM, Randy Brukardt wrote: > A body is always freezing; an expression function is freezing if it is a > completion. So that would suggest that this particular case should be legal. Thanks. So now all 3 of us who have looked at this code agree on that. > About the only time it makes sense to declare a type > in a procedure like this is to write simple test/example programs - which > necessarily makes those tests/examples less realistic than they should be. Or when, as here, the functionality is provided by a generic, and one only needs a simple main-program procedure to instantiate it. > If I was designing a simpler Ada-like language, I'd completely ban > declaring types outside of packages, so that the rules for primitive > operations and overriding would be the same for all types. (I'd also ban > declaring packages that aren't at library level, which would get rid of the > majority of accessibility checking and similar nonsense.) The only time > anyone would miss it would be when writing simple test programs. Not a huge > loss. An interesting idea, and certainly a simplification. I would like to see more about your language design. I have been thinking recently about what it would be like to have something like package types, to extend the package-as-object concept to things that can be declared and passed. My simplifications would be to eliminate type extension and accessibility checking and similar nonsense. -- Jeff Carter "I'm a kike, a yid, a heebie, a hook nose! I'm Kosher, Mum! I'm a Red Sea pedestrian, and proud of it!" Monty Python's Life of Brian 77