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!reader02.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: calling function but ignoring results
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 01:06:38 -0500
Organization: JSA Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <sbh1lf$i1c$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
References: <69a59fdc-72bb-4202-99fc-d776530de653n@googlegroups.com> <sbftm5$1gn$1@dont-email.me> <sbg04v$i7i$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Injection-Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 06:06:39 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: franka.jacob-sparre.dk; posting-host="rrsoftware.com:24.196.82.226";
	logging-data="18476"; 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: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:62303
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message 
news:sbg04v$i7i$1@gioia.aioe.org...
...
> Now if you wanted to skip an integer in the file you could not do it in 
> the proposed way:
>
>    @ := Get (Standard_Input); -- Ambiguous
>
>    @ := Integer'(Get (Standard_Input)); -- Ugly

Maybe you think qualification is "ugly", but it is precisely the Ada tool 
for this sort of problem. It wouldn't make sense to invent a new mechanism 
when an existing one does the job just fine (and it's hard to imagine a 
disambiguation mechanism that didn't include the subtype name).

> I would not say that pieces like:
>
>    declare
>       Ignore : constant Bar := Foo (Baz);
>    begin
>       null;
>    end;

In Ada 202x, renaming is easier (assuming the usual case where overloading 
isn't involved):

   declare
      Ignore renames Foo (Baz);
   begin
      null;
   end;

BTW, I disagree with the OP's premise. To me, this sort of thing is 
*exactly* what you need to do, since it makes it clear that you are ignoring 
the result. And that typically is hidden inside of a thicker binding, so 
it's pretty rare (it won't happen in well-designed Ada packages, but as 
Dmitry says, it will often happen in interfacing, at least with the 
Microsoft stuff!).

...

> But excessive overloading may lead to unexpected collisions if you have 
> many parameters with defaults.

Excessive overloading is obviously bad, so the above doesn't say much. :-) 
Determining when overloading is excessive is the hard part. Recent 
experience suggests that a lot of overloading is ultimately execessive (the 
need to change the name of some containers procedures demonstrates this!!)

                       Randy.