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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	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-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.180.24.132 with SMTP id u4mr1702229wif.6.1363918479367;
        Thu, 21 Mar 2013 19:14:39 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 p18ni6019wiv.0!nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!82.197.223.108.MISMATCH!feeder2.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!border1.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
User-Agent: NewsTap/3.5.5 (iPad)
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm-host.bauhaus@maps.arcor.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: 
 <1320854478385114328.944480rm-host.bauhaus-maps.arcor.de@news.arcor.de>
Subject: Re: Is this expected behavior or not
References: <ki034o$6g6$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <hiybjkhz3p5d.1x6dxfr1ptgcg.dlg@40tude.net>
Date: 16 Mar 2013 09:30:29 GMT
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Mar 2013 10:30:29 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 5eece46a.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=C03E]^1RbdM[6=1B@oB@@@A9EHlD;3YcB4Fo<]lROoRA8kF<OcfhCOK<A`J>alo?oOPCY\c7>ejVHD1R:\REFAWL26N?FNV9nXH
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 2013-03-16T10:30:29+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:17:11 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote:

>> "I doubt that many would agree with that." That's certainly true, but that's 
>> because few would agree with you on the notion that the contract does not 
>> include the dynamic behavior. In any case, either *you* have to agree with 
>> this premise (and thus all of your arguments on type vs. subtypes are 
>> nonsense), or you are no longer agreeing with your previous statements about 
>> contracts (which I for one would welcome, but it's seems pretty unlikely of 
>> a change).
> 
> I don't see why. How *any* contract could make something like Positive a
> non-type?

Sounds like begging the question, to me.

And "contract" adds another source of lexical ambiguities.

> A. Positive is not a type. This is what Georg says. I have no idea what
> this is supposed to mean.

It means what the RM says it means. The RM also says that
'Succ is invariant. *If* someone expects 'Succ to be what it
is not, then the RM says why. The KOVOA theory does
not, cannot, resolve the issue, else we would have seen a new
draft of section 3?

Subtype constraints are "weak" because in some contexts
that seemed what was needed.