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: a07f3367d7,2fefe7705ed3d0e2
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.180.103.197 with SMTP id fy5mr1187852wib.1.1344849934842;
        Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:25:34 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 q11ni107155880wiw.1!nntp.google.com!volia.net!news2.volia.net!feed-A.news.volia.net!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!news-feed.eu.lambdanet.net!news.bcc.de!newsfeeder.ewetel.de!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!78.46.240.70.MISMATCH!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Programmer defined arrays
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 23:52:11 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <1wsx9qzh47q5l.1e2y16dc9tfhz$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <501fd4a7$0$9524$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <87mx289bjy.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk>
 <50201582$0$9505$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <13jx05ub1u58n$.ntne8jfrs56p$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <5020310c$0$9518$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
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: 2012-08-06T23:52:11+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 23:03:08 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> On 06.08.12 21:54, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 21:05:39 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>>
>>> why
>>> do some ask for more programmer control over the translation process
>>> for arrays, via array becoming a type suitable for O-O, but function
>>> not becoming an O-O type?
>>
>> Of course they do. But there is the rub - when function is a value of some
>> type then operations of that type are functions of different kind. There is
>> a potentially infinite hierarchy of such functions. So if you wanted first
>> class functions you would need some second class functions to operate them.
>> you would also have to take care about keeping types statically checkable
>> (static typing). But if you wanted first class arrays there would be
>> nothing special about them.
> 
> More simply, (ceterum censeo Qi wouldn't need static typing, at the
> risk of non-terminating translation), I had thought of it the other
> way around.
> I'll need something below arrays to make true arrays from below-array
> things, or, addresses, TBH, silencing the fact that these establish
> arrays of indexed storage cells.

Below means what? Hexadecimal code is "below." The question is whether you
stay typed or not. It is not really below, it is rather decomposable.

> Similarly, I had thought the analog would be to ask for lower things
> for operations, too, like procedures that have multiple entry points
> to serve as bodies for a host of functions. Just for the sake of
> an example. Compact, efficient, simple, no inlining considerations.

Within a typed framework operations are fundamental, arrays are not. You
can describe an array as a set of types, values of, and operations on.

P.S. "Free function" if you meant that is a class-wide operation.

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