Re: Ada Successor Language

["Dan'l Miller" <optikos@verizon.net>]

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 12:25:27 PM UTC-5, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On 2018-06-26 18:50, Dan'l Miller wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:38:50 AM UTC-5, Simon Wright wrote:
> >> ric.wai88@gmail.com writes:
> >>
> >>> I hope I can opt to be out-side of this "Ada" community who seem bent
> >>> on wasting copious time determining overly contrived ways of
> >>> destroying Ada from the inside out.. Apparently because Ada's
> >>> carefully enforced discipline is too inconvenient, or something.
> >>
> >> I agree with you. It feels as though we have a few people around who
> >> enjoy wild flights of fancy.
> > 
> > I agree.  Ada does not need records with external-to-record tags.
> 
> Ada already has them, since 1983.

Wait.  Ada83 already has what you are proposing regarding 'Class for untagged records, eh?  But merely 3 hours ago you said that your proposing of something that is already there would be pointless:

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 9:47:38 AM UTC-5, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On 2018-06-26 16:42, Dan'l Miller wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 9:17:02 AM UTC-5, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> >> On 2018-06-26 15:59, Dan'l Miller wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 2:44:26 AM UTC-5, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> >>>> On 2018-06-25 18:21, Dan'l Miller wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:19:15 AM UTC-5, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2018-06-25 16:44, J-P. Rosen wrote:
> >>>>>>> Le 25/06/2018 à 16:21, Dmitry A. Kazakov a écrit :
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ada could allow T'Class for untagged T. T'Class would be an indefinite
> >>>>>>>> type with values consisting of the actual type's tag and its value. When
> >>>>>>>> T is by-value type, you pass T'Class to a subprogram as tag + value.
> >>>>>>>> When T is by-reference type, you pass tag + reference.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Upon dispatch, you strip the tag from the value or reference before
> >>>>>>>> passing value/reference down.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It was a requirement of Ada95 that OOP be strictly contained, and that
> >>>>>>> the same typing system as Ada83 be kept for those who don't want OOP.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Don't want OO, don't declare T'Class objects. Where is a problem?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The problem is that you just proposed 'Class for non-OO semantics.  Your proposal violates the Principal of Least Surprise.
> >>>>
> >>>> Remember, Ada is a strongly typed language, T'Class is not T, there is
> >>>> no way it could break or change anything in T.
> >>>
> >>> Quit putting non sequitur words in my mouth.  I never said that it would break anything in T.  I said that it would break T'Class in •some• situations of the untagged extended records,
> >>
> >> Such situations are strictly non-existent for neither T'Class nor record
> >> extensions are presently allowed for non-tagged types.
> > 
> > And yet, you propose them.
> 
> Proposing something that is already there would be kind of pointless...

Your not-proposing proposing talks yourself in circles.  Or is it that you are proposing nonproposals?  I cannot keep your circular nonsense straight.

> > (What the heck would we call these, btw?  Untagged tagged records?  Tagged untagged records?)
> 
> There is no special name in RM 3.8, just "record".

Ummmm.  _LRM_'s §3.8 says nothing about your 'Class usage on untagged records.