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,UTF8
Received: by 10.68.11.199 with SMTP id s7mr2137556pbb.5.1318931971040;
        Tue, 18 Oct 2011 02:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 d5ni26380pbc.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!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: Why no Ada.Wide_Directories?
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:00:00 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <1lrze4c2jrsgm$.rhtmievd2xga$.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>
 <58a8ef13-4b67-4548-b20e-469991e445d8@h23g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
 <op.v3jjfty0ule2fv@index.ici>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: FbOMkhMtVLVmu7IwBnt1tw.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:14031
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 2011-10-18T12:00:00+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:32:07 +0200, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:

> Le Tue, 18 Oct 2011 06:46:13 +0200, ytomino <aghia05@gmail.com> a écrit:
> 
>> Well...If my supplement is allowed, in my honest opinion ignoring the
>> existing way of Ada, "File_Name_String" is better.
>> (In addition, It's  welcome that UTF_8_String and UTF_16_String be new
>> types like Yannick says.)
> For personal and specific use cases, yes, however, for a standard, I would  
> be more in favor of an Unicode_String type. To be honest, my dream would  
> be to replace the Ada String type with that Unicode_String type (a dream…  

No need to replace anything, just fix the type system. It should be capable
to have String a subtype of Wide_Wide_String, which is already Unicode.
UTF8_String should also be a subtype of Wide_Wide_String, being just an
alternative implementation of.

All differences between string and character types are differences in their
implementations, not in the semantics. Semantically any string is a
sequence of code points (with various constraints applied to the set of
code points).

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