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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 2002:a6b:3c0e:: with SMTP id k14-v6mr1051022iob.105.1530038860656; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 11:47:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:aca:1214:: with SMTP id 20-v6mr279865ois.3.1530038860488; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 11:47:40 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.uzoreto.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!d7-v6no1014365itj.0!news-out.google.com!z3-v6ni758iti.0!nntp.google.com!d7-v6no1014361itj.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 11:47:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=47.185.195.62; posting-account=zwxLlwoAAAChLBU7oraRzNDnqQYkYbpo NNTP-Posting-Host: 47.185.195.62 References: <5e86db65-84b9-4b5b-9aea-427a658b5ae7@googlegroups.com> <776f3645-ed0c-4118-9b4d-21660e3bba4b@googlegroups.com> <87602fbu2g.fsf@nightsong.com> <87po0mziqt.fsf@nightsong.com> <87fu1izfgs.fsf@nightsong.com> <878t75nwad.fsf@adaheads.home> <15b6f89f-997b-45ac-86b4-2e614bb624c2@googlegroups.com> <28a46046-e7eb-4306-bc39-72bc751831ae@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <400ba7f8-6875-4ba8-99ee-c105180d5d8b@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Ada Successor Language From: "Dan'l Miller" Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 18:47:40 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:53342 Date: 2018-06-26T11:47:40-07:00 List-Id: 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. > >=20 > > I agree. Ada does not need records with external-to-record tags. >=20 > Ada already has them, since 1983. Wait. Ada83 already has what you are proposing regarding 'Class for untagg= ed records, eh? But merely 3 hours ago you said that your proposing of som= ething 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 wrot= e: > >>>> 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 wr= ote: > >>>>>> On 2018-06-25 16:44, J-P. Rosen wrote: > >>>>>>> Le 25/06/2018 =C3=A0 16:21, Dmitry A. Kazakov a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Ada could allow T'Class for untagged T. T'Class would be an inde= finite > >>>>>>>> type with values consisting of the actual type's tag and its val= ue. When > >>>>>>>> T is by-value type, you pass T'Class to a subprogram as tag + va= lue. > >>>>>>>> When T is by-reference type, you pass tag + reference. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Upon dispatch, you strip the tag from the value or reference bef= ore > >>>>>>>> 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 wo= uld break anything in T. I said that it would break T'Class in =E2=80=A2so= me=E2=80=A2 situations of the untagged extended records, > >> > >> Such situations are strictly non-existent for neither T'Class nor reco= rd > >> extensions are presently allowed for non-tagged types. > >=20 > > And yet, you propose them. >=20 > 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? Tag= ged untagged records?) >=20 > There is no special name in RM 3.8, just "record". Ummmm. _LRM_'s =C2=A73.8 says nothing about your 'Class usage on untagged = records.