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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.182.11.70 with SMTP id o6mr869174obb.19.1395932635261;
 Thu, 27 Mar 2014 08:03:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.182.33.4 with SMTP id n4mr24493obi.9.1395932635155; Thu, 27
 Mar 2014 08:03:55 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 backlog4.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!border1.nntp.hkg.giganews.com!news.netfront.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!news.glorb.com!ur14no14635308igb.0!news-out.google.com!xg2ni54igc.0!nntp.google.com!l13no11805494iga.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 08:03:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <71gmwppfsr52.1n74jhbe1j1ga.dlg@40tude.net>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=96.226.229.244;
 posting-account=zwxLlwoAAAChLBU7oraRzNDnqQYkYbpo
NNTP-Posting-Host: 96.226.229.244
References: <7f1c01c5-3563-4b94-9831-152dbbf2ecdc@googlegroups.com>
 <206rutb9pqak$.11a3dufqvmrm4.dlg@40tude.net>
 <3a071d1c-b6d1-4596-83f9-355bc9c29deb@googlegroups.com>
 <71gmwppfsr52.1n74jhbe1j1ga.dlg@40tude.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <5023a141-977a-484e-b081-feb0554525d3@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Your wish list for Ada 202X
From: "Dan'l Miller" <optikos@verizon.net>
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 15:03:55 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:185374
Date: 2014-03-27T08:03:54-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 12:04:44 PM UTC-5, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>=20
> Now is 2014 and there is still no ad-hoc subtypes and supertypes. Subtype=
s
> are still tightly coupled to the type representation. There is still no
> procedural [sub/super]types. Initialization/finalization is still a mess.
> Renaming to a subtype is still broken and so on and so forth.

Dmitry, for each of these 4 negatively-bashing topics above, please provide=
 positively-enlightening details (e.g., revealing examples with lucid expla=
nation) of precisely what is wrong with the following as well as the desire=
d state that is impossible in Ada 2012 as defined:
1) how subtypes could be less-tightly coupled to the type [without damaging=
 the rest of Ada];
2) how procedural sub-/supertypes would differ from today's runtime polymor=
phism of subroutines in subtypes overriding same-named subroutines in super=
types [without damaging the rest of Ada];
3) precisely in what ways could initialization & finalization be changed to=
 dismantle the mess [without damaging the rest of Ada];
4) how renaming to a subtype a subtype could be fixed [without damaging the=
 rest of Ada] (or equivalently:  what are your refutations to the ARG's cur=
rent inhibition of renaming to a subtype, i.e., where did the ARG go excess=
ively restrictive in their thinking regarding renaming to a subtype).