Re: High-Integrity OO and controlled types

[Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

On 03.05.11 14:27, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Tue, 03 May 2011 13:28:12 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> 
>> On 03.05.11 11:59, Maciej Sobczak wrote:
>>
>>> Another angle: the fact that the lack of controlled types in HI
>>> profiles can be considered as a problem is entirely a result of the
>>> fact that Ada completely screwed this aspect at the beginning.
>>> Controlledness should not be based on tags - it should be a completely
>>> orthogonal property of the type,
>>
>> Actually, in non-flat languages like Ada, scope exit
>> actions should be based on scopes, not (just) types,
>> as types can effectively span multiple scopes.
> 
> But typed languages tend to consider actions as operations defined on
> types, with certain contracts, reusable, clearly bound effects etc.
> 
> Actions as amorphous chunks of code tossed here and there depending on
> scope is a way different ["anisotropic"] approach. In particular it does
> not fit into safe modular software design, because of this "anisotropy".

What will type-object/module code look like if it is equivalent
to its nested analog?  Better?

My guess is that to achieve the necessary linking, one passes
Italian food handles to constructors and/or established registries
that receive "events" like "a scope X has been left".

In general, would the type-object/module approach work
better?  For example, assuming something like the naturally nested
Integrate function.