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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,ac4955b8006bd13c X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.204.149.210 with SMTP id u18mr2935248bkv.1.1338898816607; Tue, 05 Jun 2012 05:20:16 -0700 (PDT) Path: e27ni16134bkw.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 14:20:14 +0200 From: Georg Bauhaus User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Q: type ... is new String References: <82defba0-2d39-4418-b678-ebbefeb105d7@x21g2000vbc.googlegroups.com> <4fcccd1f$0$6583$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <4fccdd0c$0$6578$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <4fcd20dd$0$9519$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <1tr1nuc1xy9mp$.d5s1fz9vuczz.dlg@40tude.net> <4fcdc605$0$9524$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <1ch26v7folac1$.1gc355i72r55j.dlg@40tude.net> In-Reply-To: <1ch26v7folac1$.1gc355i72r55j.dlg@40tude.net> Message-ID: <4fcdf97f$0$9521$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> Organization: Arcor NNTP-Posting-Date: 05 Jun 2012 14:20:15 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 663ef150.newsspool1.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=OmE>lREESok016@cHD@m;jic==]BZ:afn4Fo<]lROoRankgeX?EC@@`W`=H1dd=2]anc\616M64>jLh>_cHTX3jm6O@N:h4?hnm X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 2012-06-05T14:20:15+02:00 List-Id: On 05.06.12 11:06, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >> (All I see is subsequences of 2#bbbb_bbbb#. For the AI part, >> I am told to produce the most likely information that the >> originator might have intended to send.) > > Bad design. Don't do that. How is producing the most likely information from a piece of data bad design? And who am I to say "I don't do that"? > Do not conflate > well-defined functionality, e.g. "send over socket", "render calendar page > on the screen" with ill-defined stuff, like what is going on in someone's > head. What is going on in someone's head is precisely the information I am looking for. It so happens that this includes resource identifiers, and here, too, I need to guess the right one, because the transport layer conveys mistakes, omissions, and quadruped-on-the-keyboard-effects correctly. And, again, I must rely on guesses in order to construct objects from input, and will reconstruct them again, and again. Is this about a trivially correct ADT again, to be fleshed out? I can make a sufficiently simple type for URIs, signifying nothing, and I can map any of those resource identifiers to objects of the type. I do not even need a behavioral description of the type; it is exactly that of strings (including a hashing function in the language used). So all the separate type does is that it forms a subset of strings. Good. That seems pretty close to Spolsky's safe/unsafe naming convention, but better, if refactoring is needed, because a type is better than an Emacs macro (to which he is referring somewhere). > For broken design it is always too late. Fix the design. The design as a whole is not in our hands, I should think. The design is as is, dictated by a combination of current input and time available. > How an incomplete definition is job done? If - foreign company's management says "Job done!" and - foreign company works profitably, = then an incomplete definition means job done. The resulting "designed system" is not ideal, from my technical point of view. But they need not care. > Why should I care about description of naming schemes? I need a set of > types describing file name valid in some specified environment. Whenever there is a sufficient specification of an environment, fine. Just saying that web documents are an example of when a specification might be insufficient, if it exists at all.