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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5bcc293dc5642650
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Received: by 10.68.38.134 with SMTP id g6mr14749057pbk.6.1319191645803;
        Fri, 21 Oct 2011 03:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 d5ni39137pbc.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!o19g2000vbk.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Vadim Godunko <vgodunko@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Why no Ada.Wide_Directories?
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 03:07:04 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <4d97ced2-1695-4352-926c-2070f9ccbbf1@o19g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>
References: <9937871.172.1318575525468.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prib32>
 <418b8140-fafb-442f-b91c-e22cc47f8adb@y22g2000pri.googlegroups.com>
 <j7i6va$nso$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <7156122c-b63f-487e-ad1b-0edcc6694a7a@u10g2000prl.googlegroups.com>
 <ffeeb5d0-5685-42ff-a141-72bea410f239@u10g2000prl.googlegroups.com>
 <409c81ab-bd54-493b-beb4-a0cca99ec306@p27g2000prp.googlegroups.com>
 <d831c4d8-3540-44cb-8976-e588e22b4c59@l10g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
 <a3j4wzrhrj65$.bkkht9t97w84.dlg@40tude.net> <j7ng9f$6ob$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <amorj8tk8wlg.mekrgyi7rob0.dlg@40tude.net> <j7pmem$su2$1@dont-email.me>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 95.153.190.106
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1319191639 27513 127.0.0.1 (21 Oct 2011 10:07:19
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:07:19 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: o19g2000vbk.googlegroups.com; posting-host=95.153.190.106;
 posting-account=niG3UgoAAAD7iQ3takWjEn_gw6D9X3ww
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-Google-Web-Client: true
X-Google-Header-Order: HUALESNKRC
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:7.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/7.0,gzip(gfe)
Xref: news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18638
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2011-10-21T03:07:04-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Oct 20, 9:40=A0pm, "J-P. Rosen" <ro...@adalog.fr> wrote:
>
> A possible alternative solution could be to make UTF_8_String a type
> derived from String (rather than a subtype).

Why all around stick with concrete representation of textual
information? Lets define text as logical sequence of Unicode code
points, regardless of external representation (so, encoding); lets
define new kind of "string" as private type, provide useful 'syntax
sugar' to use it in 'usual' way and lets String/Wide_String/
Wide_Wide_String to die. I believe it is true Ada way to separate high
level concept and low level representation.