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!gandalf.srv.welterde.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!franka.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED.rrsoftware.com!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Proposal: Auto-allocation of Indefinite Objects
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 19:10:27 -0500
Organization: JSA Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <rhkf1k$7p1$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
References: <94a54092-a56f-4a99-aaec-08dd611c8fd8@googlegroups.com> <8a502b6c-4609-4cd8-b292-5797fe6421e1n@googlegroups.com> <rfn41o$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$1@dont-email.me> <rfs7k4$c83$1@gioia.aioe.org> <rfuujk$hh2$1@dont-email.me> <rfv3gf$1bbo$1@gioia.aioe.org> <rgq504$4fc$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk> <rgr267$1o1n$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Injection-Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 00:10:28 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: franka.jacob-sparre.dk; posting-host="rrsoftware.com:24.196.82.226";
	logging-data="7969"; mail-complaints-to="news@jacob-sparre.dk"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.7246
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:59753
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message 
news:rgr267$1o1n$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> No, from the abstraction point of view they do not. They indeed abstract 
> the memory allocation aspect, but they do that at the cost of *everything* 
> else. Unbounded_String is no string anymore. Container is neither array 
> nor record type. Unbounded_String must be converted forth and back. For 
> containers I must use ugly hacks like iterators to make them resemble 
> arrays and records introducing whole levels of complexity to fight through 
> every time the compiler or I miss something.
>
> In most cases I prefer to keep a clear array or record interface at the 
> expense of manual memory management.
>
>> There's no free lunch.
>
> I think with a better type system there could be a whole banquet. (:-))

Maybe. but IMHO a better type system would get rid of arrays and strings 
altogether and only have containers/records of various sorts. The complexity 
of having both solving the same problems (not very well in the case of 
arrays/strings) doesn't buy much. I suspect that a user-defined "." as 
you've proposed elsewhere would eliminate most of the rest of the problems 
(and unify everything even further).

                                  Randy.