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: a07f3367d7,39579ad87542da0e
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.180.109.111 with SMTP id hr15mr1643387wib.1.1368583403904;
        Tue, 14 May 2013 19:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 p18ni110077wiv.0!nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!85.12.40.138.MISMATCH!xlned.com!feeder5.xlned.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed2.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!border4.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.news.ucla.edu!nrc-news.nrc.ca!News.Dal.Ca!news.litech.org!news.stack.nl!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Seeking for papers about tagged types vs access to subprograms
Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 09:50:53 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <1bp6zlpetr5l4.12a9zcd1x3yya.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <op.wv8jh1c1ule2fv@cardamome> <op.wwbvqzkeule2fv@cardamome>
 <op.wwnp2zkrule2fv@cardamome> <u3jaslg5kca7.1gk5ds3d4sx2y$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <op.wwnsmtteule2fv@cardamome> <17ceq51ydy3s0.s94miqqzbg5w.dlg@40tude.net>
 <op.wwny5jerule2fv@cardamome> <1vrhb7oc4qbob$.q02vuouyovp5$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <op.wwn4oak8ule2fv@cardamome> <19lrzzbgm77v6.1dzpgqckptaj6.dlg@40tude.net>
 <kmbohm$elb$1@loke.gir.dk> <p0pf97g5w6xg.jhca6ztjwpde$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <kmebjm$eds$1@loke.gir.dk>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: 15waz9CoS+eMakbyhTPyFQ.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="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2013-05-09T09:50:53+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 8 May 2013 15:12:38 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message 
> news:p0pf97g5w6xg.jhca6ztjwpde$.dlg@40tude.net...

>> What I wish is to change the language foundation while keeping the
>> semantics of existing types intact. The whole idea is to move them onto 
>> the library level rather than changing anything in them.
> 
> That's precisely what I'm talking about. The result cannot be Ada, because 
> the result is not going to be close to 100% compatible with Ada (and that 
> should not be a criteria for a new language).

I don't see obvious reason why. It is not about reworking exiting built-in
types and type-algebraic operations. There is nothing wrong with them.

> Despite your fantasies to the 
> contrary, there is no possibility of changing the models in any useful way 
> and retaining compatibility in subtle cases. Moreover, even if possible, the 
> pretzel-like rules needed would prevent the sort of overhaul that you really 
> desire. So why cling to the mistakes of the past - flush all of that down 
> the drain and start over.

Because most of Ada semantics is OK. I don't see any mistakes. Even if they
were, it is irrelevant because I am looking for a more general model, where
mistake or not, it becomes just an implementation. So if you don't like a
particular built-in type for whatever reason, you make your own. No
problem.

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