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: 103376,81bb2ce65a3240c3
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Received: by 10.68.197.193 with SMTP id iw1mr11834308pbc.0.1335613937890;
        Sat, 28 Apr 2012 04:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 r9ni108059pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What would you like in Ada202X?
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 13:51:55 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <1db2z6uwupgb4.1m1vvhy6u8y69.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <3637793.35.1335340026327.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfi5>
 <4f97bf40$0$6559$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <jnabjc$vg8$1@munin.nbi.dk> <lh3gjjdhbg01.k1bt0u2astpl$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <jncnej$2kv$1@munin.nbi.dk> <11hojzrgyl24o$.1rbxahkuoy4ab$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <jnf7ck$d80$1@munin.nbi.dk> <19h14pweusucs$.1q59fpys2663d.dlg@40tude.net>
 <op.wdg312bzule2fv@douda-yannick>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: Gbl624r6iuNIccy3ASy5ag.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: 2012-04-28T13:51:55+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 13:40:40 +0200, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) wrote:

> Le Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:53:45 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
> <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a �crit:
>>> If you're willing to abandon all compile-time checking, then of course there
>>> are no problems (and probably no programs that work, either). That's not
>>> Ada.
>>
>> No, I want exactly the opposite. I want interfaces checked statically.  
>> You cannot do this without manifesting them up-front. You cannot do that
>> without MI, because any type implements a whole of bunch of various
>> interfaces. I want them declared.
> 
> I'm on the way to be convinced.

You didn't say by whom. (:-))

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