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: 103376,9983e856ed268154
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.180.75.8 with SMTP id y8mr559115wiv.4.1344618198505;
        Fri, 10 Aug 2012 10:03:18 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 q11ni62413632wiw.1!nntp.google.com!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: Should Inline be private in the private part of a package spec?
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 19:03:08 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <1egt1n41ny80z.myfwptqjdcjt$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <501bd285$0$6564$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <e416cb92-6ec8-4514-8fa9-c35d6432b117@googlegroups.com>
 <wcc4noj4zof.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <jvnchp$r5c$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <wccr4rkqed5.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <op.wiml9rw3ka8ora@aspire.local>
 <502005b6$0$9510$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <op.wim0pbprka8ora@aspire.local>
 <50203ca2$0$9512$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <502040c0$0$9510$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <k01amo$jio$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <50677fa2-7f82-4ccc-8c56-161bf67fefe1@googlegroups.com>
 <3235054d-3832-4127-83f1-784a3ee50d01@googlegroups.com>
 <xsxy7zf5hycd$.85ey2djah2lz$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <c4db9c9a-1b9c-48a7-98ac-af894fc1783f@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: 9A8bJrx4NhDLcSmbrb6AdA.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: 2012-08-10T19:03:08+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:45:03 -0700 (PDT), Shark8 wrote:

> On Friday, August 10, 2012 1:37:04 AM UTC-6, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> 
>> However the point is valid. The OS should be natively OO and the Ada source
>> should be an object implementing various interfaces additionally to the
>> "text buffer" interface. In some different world, but this one dominated by
>> living fossils...
> 
> Indeed so. In fact, I think that's just scraping the surface of how an OS
> should handle files. It should have files [strongly-]typed, perhaps with a
> validated flag to indicate that that type is known to be true (perhaps the
> type indicator implemented as a signed 64-bit integer, which would have a
> magnitude indicating the file-type; negative values indicating
> non-validated files. [0 would be a straight-up binary file, as all files
> would be binary it makes no sense for validation thereon; the
> extra-negative value, assuming 2's complement, could indicate truly
> unknown]). Furthermore, each file-type should have a corresponding object
> which knows how to read, write & validate itself.

No files, only persistent objects. Instead of file type you would have a
type tag, kept memory protected. The operations would be protected too, so
that you could not call a wrong operation on the object even if you knew
its entry point address and used any fancy unchecked conversion stuff.

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