From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) 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=3.4.5-pre1
Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED.2uCIJahv+a4XEBqttj5Vkw.user.gioia.aioe.org!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Proposal: Auto-allocation of Indefinite Objects
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 18:20:24 +0200
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <rfs7k4$c83$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <94a54092-a56f-4a99-aaec-08dd611c8fd8@googlegroups.com>
 <8a502b6c-4609-4cd8-b292-5797fe6421e1n@googlegroups.com>
 <rfn41o$ccv$1@dont-email.me> <rfnbtg$t1c$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <rfpcn4$2n6$1@dont-email.me> <rfpefq$17fm$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <rfs4sd$bv0$1@dont-email.me>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2uCIJahv+a4XEBqttj5Vkw.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
Content-Language: en-US
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:59590
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 29/07/2020 17:33, Brian Drummond wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 16:59:09 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

>>>      A constant String := "done";
>>>      Q : indefinite String;
>>>    ...
>>>      loop
>>>         Q := Get_Line;
>>>         exit when Q = A;
>>>      end loop;
>>
>> I am not comfortable with the semantics of this and with possible
>> implications too. I would keep it simple.
> 
> Interesting. Can you pin down some of that discomfort? It looks simple to
> me :
> 
> "indefinite" indicates the size can vary (and the compiler knows whether
> it used the heap or stack), and in the absence of "aliased" we know there
> are no copies of the pointer (if heap).

I don't like compiler relocating objects. If the pool is a stack (or 
heap organized as a stack) it might be unable to do this.

In general, there are two close but not equivalent objectives one is 
handling indefinite components of records another is a transparent 
holder object integrated into the language (without generic mess).

Your use case is about the latter. My is rather the former.

I doubt it is possible to unite both objectives in a single AI.

>> That would be inconsistent. IMO, it should be a deep copy, provided such
>> a component would not make the type limited, of which I am not sure.
> 
> Honest question : Inconsistent with what?
> I suggested shallow copy just for simplicity, and for no (ahh) deeper
> reason. But again, I'm probably missing something.

If you make a shallow copy of

    type Node_Type is record
       Item : new Element_Type;
       Prev : Node_Ptr_Type;
       Next : Node_Ptr_Type;
    end record;

you create a dangling pointer should the original node disappear. A deep 
copy would create a new target for new Item.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de