Re: Why no Ada.Wide_Directories?

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:38:27 +0200, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) wrote:

> Le Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:21:16 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
> <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a �crit:
>>> It still is!, the trouble is at library level, not language level.
>>
>> No, the troubles at the library level are reflections of language  
>> problems.
>>
>> The language ceased to evolve within its paradigm of a strongly typed
>> language. Instead of addressing new issues from the stand point of typed
>> approach, it tries solutions from the languages alien to its spirit.

> Can you draw a short (or less short) formal model ? Do you have clear  
> ideas ? Are they ideas inspired from known formalisms (may be like in  
> specific or research languages) ? I am interested in typing and typing  
> models.

I am not a language designer. I have problems rather than solutions.

What I know is that the decomposition shall go along the types. Design
entities must be described as types. Their relationships should be as type
relationships. Substitutability should be decided on the basis of
manifested declarations, not the type structure. Interface must be clearly
separated from implementation. Implementation must be absolutely free too
choose. There shall be no procedures but operations on types. All types
shall have classes. Any syntax sugar (prefix notation, infix operations,
assignments, indexing, member extraction, aggregates, entries, attributes)
shall be operations. Construction model must be type safe (in particular,
each type must have constructors, including class-wide types). The type
system shall support both specialization and generalization. The programmer
should be able to enforce static type and constraint checks, in particular,
to convert any potentially dynamic checks into compile-time errors. All
exceptions must be typed, contracted and statically checked.

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