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: 103376,826cd690cb6a7585
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!noris.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:25:38 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6;
 rv:6.0.1) Gecko/20110830 Thunderbird/6.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: The simple Image issue
References: <m2mxerfai2.fsf@pushface.org> <j3iv3s$id4$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <904e717e-da4c-46c9-bbc2-4bae8368d459@l4g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>
 <4e5d139f$0$6575$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <3756bc0c-d938-4b45-baa1-b80e59d58055@a10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
 <1a879va9fjuwo.1r1b6vbp45lx5.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4e5dd1c1$0$6638$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <4e5e58ee$0$2996$a8266bb1@newsreader.readnews.com>
In-Reply-To: <4e5e58ee$0$2996$a8266bb1@newsreader.readnews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4e5e6082$0$7611$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Aug 2011 18:25:38 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 625251a6.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=G<YNlO=0^aY[7Non7UCi8Uic==]BZ:af^4Fo<]lROoRQ<`=YMgDjhgRF8Vh=JL_3>[nc\616M64>ZLh>_cHTX3j]nlJNOKo@`3^
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:21752
Date: 2011-08-31T18:25:38+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 31.08.11 17:53, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 8/31/2011 2:16 AM, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>> In which way would you change T'Value for symmetry?
> 
> You wouldn't, because the symmetry is false. When you
> already have an object, being forced to name its type
> is silly and redundant.

True when there is an object; but what about

 (some expression)'Value ?