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,LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,cc4f25d878383cc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-14 12:20:17 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!wn1feed!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc54.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Mark Lundquist" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <11bf7180.0112070815.2625851b@posting.google.com> <9v0crt$bo2bi$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de> <9v37rs$cdmva$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de> <9vb98r$e9g47$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de> Subject: Re: Dimensionality Checking (Ada 20XX) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: <4atS7.24549$7y.314266@rwcrnsc54> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 20:20:16 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.127.202.211 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: rwcrnsc54 1008361216 204.127.202.211 (Fri, 14 Dec 2001 20:20:16 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 20:20:16 GMT Organization: AT&T Broadband Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17925 Date: 2001-12-14T20:20:16+00:00 List-Id: "Nick Roberts" wrote in message news:9vb98r$e9g47$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de... > "Mark Lundquist" wrote in message > news:Nn7S7.44589$ER5.535249@rwcrnsc52... > > > > > I'm not sure quite what you're getting at there, but it sounds like it > > > might > > > > be related to an issue I've been thinking about, which is that these > > units > > > > currently would not be able to work with "quasi-numeric" abstractions > > such > > > > as people define for things like rational numbers, infinite-precision > > > > arithmetic, etc. > > > > ... > > > > > > Correct. (The example presented to me was Ada.Calendar.Time). > > > > There you go... Calendar.Time is a perfect example. > > Yes. It is important to keep what is being proposed in perspective. If it > has any merit at all, it will be limited. Nevertheless, I do believe it has > merit. (Remember, we are not trying to solve all the world's problems at a > single stroke ;-) Right. Private numeric types are an orthogonal problem. Only, if that feature were added and so were unit-awareness, then it would make sense for the two features to play together, that's all. My intuition is that there are no obstacles to getting unit-awareness to work with private numeric types that wouldn't already have had to be overcome just to get private numeric types to work in the language at all. And I think those obstacles would be considerable... if you can't figure out how to get literals and constrained subtypes that make sense, then it's hardly worth talking about. It would probably take someone smarter than me to figure those out. But like I said, I haven't given it a whole lot of thought... --mark -- -------------- Reply by email to: Mark dot Lundquist at ACM dot org Consulting services: http://home.attbi.com/~mlundquist2/consulting