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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,7ee10ec601726fbf
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-30 10:27:03 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.ems.psu.edu!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!usenetserver.com!news-east.rr.com!news-west.rr.com!lsnws01.we.mediaone.net!typhoon.san.rr.com!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <3BDEF0FE.B55FED9E@san.rr.com>
From: Darren New <dnew@san.rr.com>
Organization: Boxes!
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: why not
References: <3BC5D730.DA950CC7@boeing.com> <9q4pa7$1ad$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <slrn9sdahp.k4.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de> <3BC6ACC8.23EF21BC@free.fr>
 <QQCx7.26073$ev2.34583@www.newsranger.com> <3BC71F54.1FFE78FA@boeing.com>
 <1KGx7.26476$ev2.35117@www.newsranger.com> <3BC7AD82.2A0CCCD4@acm.org>
 <usncjtzix.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov> <9qhiqr$af0$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <K1Zy7.12219$hT5.3979715684@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
 <1nDC7.180$6S7.92255364@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>
 <9rjsak$bp3$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <jbfstt097fvrrqmrl0kuscmbl57neg8imf@4ax.com>
 <9rmhb9$o1b$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 18:27:24 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.75.151.160
X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com
X-Trace: typhoon.san.rr.com 1004466444 66.75.151.160 (Tue,
 30 Oct 2001 10:27:24 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:27:24 PST
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15431
Date: 2001-10-30T18:27:24+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Marin David Condic wrote:
> Part of the problem is
> specifying the behavior in sufficient detail to make it verifiable.

That's what ADTs are supposed to be for. (Not ADT's in the computer
programming sense. ADTs in the "Abstract Data Type" sense, the
mathematical sense.)

It's not hard. It's just that most programmers think ADTs have (say)
implementations and such.

> There is
> also a certain amount of inflexibility once it gets into the standard.

I thought that was the point, yes? Inflexible == you can rely on it not
changing?

-- 
Darren New 
San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
     Sore feet from standing in line at airport
                 security checkpoints: Jet Leg.