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: 103376,5bcc293dc5642650
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Received: by 10.68.30.202 with SMTP id u10mr6200373pbh.1.1319356430419;
        Sun, 23 Oct 2011 00:53:50 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 c1ni2857pbr.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!feeder.news-service.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Why no Ada.Wide_Directories?
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 09:53:47 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <1l7zxjcrre04c.1taw8dtwqpkkh.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <9937871.172.1318575525468.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prib32>
 <418b8140-fafb-442f-b91c-e22cc47f8adb@y22g2000pri.googlegroups.com>
 <j7i6va$nso$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <7156122c-b63f-487e-ad1b-0edcc6694a7a@u10g2000prl.googlegroups.com>
 <ffeeb5d0-5685-42ff-a141-72bea410f239@u10g2000prl.googlegroups.com>
 <409c81ab-bd54-493b-beb4-a0cca99ec306@p27g2000prp.googlegroups.com>
 <d831c4d8-3540-44cb-8976-e588e22b4c59@l10g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
 <a3j4wzrhrj65$.bkkht9t97w84.dlg@40tude.net> <j7ng9f$6ob$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <amorj8tk8wlg.mekrgyi7rob0.dlg@40tude.net> <j7pmem$su2$1@dont-email.me>
 <4d97ced2-1695-4352-926c-2070f9ccbbf1@o19g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>
 <j7rkri$9kg$1@dont-email.me> <u5zft12qq5ou$.5dred087ea6f.dlg@40tude.net>
 <op.v3pljd0uule2fv@index.ici> <1cchjqhfjqo2l$.1s951jo0p9w8c.dlg@40tude.net>
 <op.v3pu5jo7ule2fv@index.ici> <1xuiads70kb6s$.odhmr2fg9b0z.dlg@40tude.net>
 <op.v3px6dk6ule2fv@index.ici> <1ljblwrul8pmp$.1crge3eb0lhon.dlg@40tude.net>
 <op.v3rxs0kyule2fv@index.ici>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: NkTZyZQzt+uRNthfI6+Hjg.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
Xref: news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:14159
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 2011-10-23T09:53:47+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 00:23:14 +0200, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) wrote:

> If you really believe Ada subtypes, *as Ada allows to use it*, does not  
> conform to the substitution principle, can you provide an example ?

Specialization (Ada subtype is a specialization) breaks LSP in
out-operation (an operation with out parameters and/or result of the
subtype)

Generalization breaks in-operations.

This does not mean that there is something wrong with specialization or
generalization, only that subtyping cannot be based on LSP. Which is the
reason why programming languages use so-called "subclassing" instead, read:
non-LSP subtyping. Ada 83 missed Newspeak and called subtyping "subtyping".

> Please Dmitry, could write down once a whole, all you comments about Ada. 

Not necessary, you can skip my moans and get right to the response:

"The change .......(fill as appropriate)........ could break existing Ada
programs, which is unacceptable, unless the cases when it would make Ada
look more like Java, LISP, Perl, ....(put a disgusting language here).....,
but it does not."

(:-))

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