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-Thread: a07f3367d7,ab1d177a5a26577d
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 12:52:53 +0100
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm-host.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110123 Thunderbird/3.1.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What's wrong with C++?
References: 
 <104cfd9f-dbf5-4f05-9c4a-a2319dd371a9@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>
 <alpine.WNT.2.00.1102161829430.1328@WHIRLWIND>
 <ijivb2$b60$1@news.eternal-september.org>
In-Reply-To: <ijivb2$b60$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <4d5d0c16$0$6972$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Feb 2011 12:52:54 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 79d5c548.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=TnPZnMDJ_8PYI9]OHn9o5^4IUK<Cl32<Q4Fo<]lROoRQ8kF<OcfhCO[gN;^5BYMG0_PCY\c7>ejVXIdnKl\<j4<_W?]@1AG_3Z\
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17332
Date: 2011-02-17T12:52:54+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2/17/11 12:04 PM, J-P. Rosen wrote:
> Le 17/02/2011 00:35, Peter C. Chapin a �crit :
>> A macro defined in someheader.h might change the meaning of the
>> declarations in someotherheader.h.
> And especially the following one:
> #define private public
>
> Great for those who think that information hiding is a nuisance!

It is good to know that source code transformation
can change the meaning of source text.  I don't think
this argument will convince.  Is there substantial evidence
of programs that #define private to be public? Might be.
The change is a conventional trick to use with introspective
languages, and useful.

But anyway, the argument is easily refuted as by
firing this riposte:

procedure Safe is

     function "+" (Left, Right: Integer) return Integer is
     begin
         return 0;
     end "+";

     A : array (Integer range 1 .. 2) of Integer;
begin
     for K in A'Range loop
         A (A'First + K - 1) := 666;
     end loop;
end Safe;


Make "+" a little more obscure (if possible) and have
a proponent of Ada look for the error...


Or talk about the possibility (or not) of changing the
definition of Integer temporarily to a debugging version
of Integer whose operations we can trace.