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: a07f3367d7,2fefe7705ed3d0e2
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.66.85.3 with SMTP id d3mr1219187paz.18.1344848568753;
        Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 p10ni48093485pbh.1!nntp.google.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news-in-01.newsfeed.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!novia!newsfeed.yul.equant.net!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!news-feed.eu.lambdanet.net!news.bcc.de!newsfeeder.ewetel.de!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!gegeweb.org!dedibox.gegeweb.org!gegeweb.eu!nntpfeed.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 23:03:08 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Programmer defined arrays
References: <501fd4a7$0$9524$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <87mx289bjy.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk>
 <50201582$0$9505$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <13jx05ub1u58n$.ntne8jfrs56p$.dlg@40tude.net>
In-Reply-To: <13jx05ub1u58n$.ntne8jfrs56p$.dlg@40tude.net>
Message-ID: <5020310c$0$9518$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 06 Aug 2012 23:03:09 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 6c3509fa.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=1bmbi]@de8E6PJ?[X6JIXEic==]BZ:afN4Fo<]lROoRAnkgeX?EC@@@RXf;QenT\CMPCY\c7>ejVHGjA^1]:>gjBdGTDl8D`ZUE
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
X-Received-Bytes: 2909
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-08-06T23:03:09+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 06.08.12 21:54, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 21:05:39 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>
>> why
>> do some ask for more programmer control over the translation process
>> for arrays, via array becoming a type suitable for O-O, but function
>> not becoming an O-O type?
>
> Of course they do. But there is the rub - when function is a value of some
> type then operations of that type are functions of different kind. There is
> a potentially infinite hierarchy of such functions. So if you wanted first
> class functions you would need some second class functions to operate them.
> you would also have to take care about keeping types statically checkable
> (static typing). But if you wanted first class arrays there would be
> nothing special about them.
>

More simply, (ceterum censeo Qi wouldn't need static typing, at the
risk of non-terminating translation), I had thought of it the other
way around.
I'll need something below arrays to make true arrays from below-array
things, or, addresses, TBH, silencing the fact that these establish
arrays of indexed storage cells.
Similarly, I had thought the analog would be to ask for lower things
for operations, too, like procedures that have multiple entry points
to serve as bodies for a host of functions. Just for the sake of
an example. Compact, efficient, simple, no inlining considerations.