From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,73cb216d191f0fef
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
X-Received: by 10.180.20.239 with SMTP id q15mr1250936wie.7.1364344815445;
        Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:40:15 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 p18ni19804wiv.0!nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!82.197.223.103.MISMATCH!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!193.141.40.65.MISMATCH!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!border2.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border4.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsgate.cuhk.edu.hk!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is this expected behavior or not
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:54:20 +0100
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <10cliooad0uk.1prxobehp9yr0.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <c988e09f-8532-4840-9749-b61aa39551b4@googlegroups.com>
 <18r2kop6fyozu.tctrjnghfxqs.dlg@40tude.net> <khstap$f55$1@dont-email.me>
 <1wv3p3nrtejfk$.bwebhg9agt0l.dlg@40tude.net> <khti0e$6k9$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <ewe0v3ck1xdo$.e8rtuof27ke6$.dlg@40tude.net > <ki034o$6g6$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <hiybjkhz3p5d.1x6dxfr1ptgcg.dlg@40tude.net> <ki84th$vv7$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <vawvqtrqgamw$.1gsl8m14dvk4i.dlg@40tude.net>
 <514874d3$0$6628$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <1o60gooo8xvba$.1ei9cebb07zek$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <514897bd$0$6641$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <1oqwvcemo8dha$.hevuedtz8eze.dlg@40tude.net> <kiage3$n6$1@dont-email.me>
 <14aijp8ckzahf$.1ilfm1nw6qgyt$.dlg@40tude.net> <kian09$abu$1@dont-email.me>
 <z2mi0kc1svou.hs3mbubl1ffx$.dlg@40tude.net> <kic4qj$mt9$1@dont-email.me>
 <1xg9wka6slgit.1q0leacagdeuv.dlg@40tude.net> <kihbal$3fa$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: FbOMkhMtVLVmu7IwBnt1tw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 2013-03-22T15:54:20+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 11:23:09 +0100, J-P. Rosen wrote:

> Le 20/03/2013 14:21, Dmitry A. Kazakov a �crit :
> 
>> See, same operation applied to same value of same type gives different
>> result.
>> 
>> This is called UNTYPED.

> No, it is not the operation that gives different result, it's the
> assignment of a value that is incompatible with the variable's
> constraint that raises C_E.

There is no assignment in my example. Assignment is in the *body* of the
operation Foo.

The effect is different when Foo is called on a variable of Integer vs.
Positive "non-types."

Are you saying that one have to look into the bodies, on top of having it
untyped?

And what is so special about assignments?

> The theory of ADT has no notion of subtypes (Ada definition).

There is nothing special in Ada-subtypes. They are just ADTs.

> Therefore,
> you can't translate Ada's subtypes into the terms of ADT.

I just did it.

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