Re: Proposal: Auto-allocation of Indefinite Objects

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On 21/08/2020 01:30, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message
> news:rhmd3m$1eql$2@gioia.aioe.org...
>> On 20/08/2020 02:10, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>>> "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).
>>
>> But records and arrays are needed as building blocks of containers. How
>> would you get rid of them?
> 
> There's no reason that a compiler couldn't "build-in" a simple bounded
> vector container as the basic building block.

That simply replaces the word "array" with four words "simple bounded 
vector container." The construct is still there and it is still 
built-in. The syntax and usability are drastically worse, though.

> One could do something similar for records, although I would probably leave
> them as in Ada and just allow user-definition of "." (via a getter/setter
> pair).

Ditto.

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