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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,73cb216d191f0fef
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.14.220.131 with SMTP id o3mr132714eep.3.1363918478865;
        Thu, 21 Mar 2013 19:14:38 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 p18ni6019wiv.0!nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!82.197.223.108.MISMATCH!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!193.141.40.65.MISMATCH!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!border2.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!rt.uk.eu.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is this expected behavior or not
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 14:04:07 +0100
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <4dmdbmzm1ti0$.17x4ya0k57x2x.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <ki034o$6g6$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <hiybjkhz3p5d.1x6dxfr1ptgcg.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1320854478385114328.944480rm-host.bauhaus-maps.arcor.de@news.arcor.de>
 <67810vo62ikk$.sn112ruycoaw.dlg@40tude.net>
 <5144597d$0$6642$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: XRUMb5xlbonTNodERpEXEw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2013-03-16T14:04:07+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:37:33 +0100, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> On 16.03.13 11:27, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> 
>>> And "contract" adds another source of lexical ambiguities.
>>
>> Source of lexical ambiguities? This sounds like an encoding problem.
> 
> It is a problem of semantics.

A problem of semantics is lexical ambiguity...?

>>>> A. Positive is not a type. This is what Georg says. I have no idea what
>>>> this is supposed to mean.
>>>
>>> It means what the RM says it means.
>>
>> Which is?

[...]
Why don't you simply explain why in your opinion Positive is not a type?
Without lexical ambiguities, semantic problems and other smoke and mirrors
stuff.

>>> Subtype constraints are "weak" because in some contexts
>>> that seemed what was needed.
>>
>> You read that from the RM?
> 
> I read what the inventor of the subtype, Ivan Godard, has had to say.
> http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Comp/comp.arch/2012-08/msg00360.html

To paraphrase Omar: if those books are in agreement with the RM, we have no
need of them; and if these are opposed to the RM, destroy them. (:-))

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de