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: a07f3367d7,9983e856ed268154 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.236.153.6 with SMTP id e6mr10952123yhk.20.1344998912872; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:48:32 -0700 (PDT) Path: c6ni113160481qas.0!nntp.google.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nrc-news.nrc.ca!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Should Inline be private in the private part of a package spec? Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 07:25:31 +0200 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: <1spnkbfp1303e$.bt4y9iy4wfc4.dlg@40tude.net> References: <501bd285$0$6564$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <502005b6$0$9510$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <50203ca2$0$9512$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <502040c0$0$9510$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <50677fa2-7f82-4ccc-8c56-161bf67fefe1@googlegroups.com> <3235054d-3832-4127-83f1-784a3ee50d01@googlegroups.com> <1egt1n41ny80z.myfwptqjdcjt$.dlg@40tude.net> <4c9e8922-0878-4d8d-8e22-85a83ba1952b@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 X-Received-Bytes: 3486 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 2012-08-11T07:25:31+02:00 List-Id: On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 20:27:27 -0700 (PDT), Shark8 wrote: > On Friday, August 10, 2012 4:10:12 PM UTC-6, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:35:28 -0700 (PDT), Shark8 wrote: >> >>> Files *are* persistent objects... indeed, they are persistent across >>> power-on/power-off cycles, which makes them even more persistent than >>> anything else in the system (save the hardware). >> >> 1. Files are weakly typed objects. One can "reinterpret" a file as one can >> reinterpret anything in C. > > Not entirely correct; most of that has to do with the OS's own design. > IIRC the Apple computer had a typed file-system that made the assumption > that a file's type was associated w/ a particular program. C makes assumption too. That does not make typing strong. >> 2. The operations defined on files do not reflect the semantics of the >> contents but the semantics of the file system, e.g. reading, writing. It is >> low-level stuff. Compare this with Integer is a higher-level language. You >> don't read integers. You would do this in an assemble language, loading >> registers, storing them into memory etc. When I say "object" I mean an >> object of some ADT, rather that objects found in Assemble language. > > They should have those high-level operations, but I believe they should > also have a base/common interface; that is, the OS should also be able to > operate on file_type'class objects w/o worrying if it's a MIDI file or an > Ada file. Operate = applying operations. Interface = set of operations. You cannot do anything without having an operation. The point is about weak vs. strong typing and ADT POV. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de