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: 103376,73cb216d191f0fef
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.180.95.97 with SMTP id dj1mr7131616wib.4.1363285010734;
        Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:16:50 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 g1ni65830wig.0!nntp.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!78.46.240.70.MISMATCH!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.teledata-fn.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 19:16:35 +0100
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is this expected behavior or not
References: <c988e09f-8532-4840-9749-b61aa39551b4@googlegroups.com>
 <b9c8e444-4fcc-489f-8101-0a2873807987@googlegroups.com>
 <mtz6eyrgv524.r2yf3jw9vid3$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wccmwu8r0xh.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <8klywqh2pf$.1f949flc1xeia.dlg@40tude.net>
 <513f6e2f$0$6572$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <b3jec1s37hwu$.bg5cvsul0r5$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <513faaf7$0$6626$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <aufd7vornmrk.2dxqrc3egrtg$.dlg@40tude.net> <khphpb$5f1$1@dont-email.me>
 <w46epyd1vjc2.1e1bviaog2kwi$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <51408e81$0$6577$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <1xqmd3386hvns.1og1uql2cgnuf$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <5140b812$0$6575$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <vxjicagtvzjg.1bcu3fzy711ux$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <5140f1ad$0$6634$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <7jct0noryc1v.1rnj5kkzx6m35.dlg@40tude.net>
 <5141c499$0$6642$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <18r2kop6fyozu.tctrjnghfxqs.dlg@40tude.net> <khstap$f55$1@dont-email.me>
 <1wv3p3nrtejfk$.bwebhg9agt0l.dlg@40tude.net>
In-Reply-To: <1wv3p3nrtejfk$.bwebhg9agt0l.dlg@40tude.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Message-ID: <51421404$0$6576$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Mar 2013 19:16:36 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3ed6f9bc.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=k7VG`@\a2V3gP]QSEBQ^d4McF=Q^Z^V384Fo<]lROoR18kF<OcfhCO;2^a?VURO\o?nc\616M64>:Lh>_cHTX3j=5BRcV7FJJ`>
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2013-03-14T19:16:36+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 14.03.13 18:29, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> > And please, we are talking about Ada here, not KOVOA (Kasakov's Own View
>> > of Ada).
> Yes, it is my view of Ada. You have yours. What is wrong with that?

An analogy:

The language C is an O-O language because the following is
both standard conforming and consistent with ADT views of C:

  Convert a void* to a struct that has a vtbl-Pointer
  that points to another struct (equally convertible
  from void*) that has a function pointer. Everything
  is type checked. This construct allows everything
  one needs in O-O programming.

The programs following this view exhibit a view of C as a language
whose structs obviously create inheritable O-O types that have
operations, all in the sense of perfect ADTs.

C is clearly an O-O language, then, since you can observe the
behavior of such programs to be O-O.

This style of argument will challenge other views of C
in the style of a provocation that requires much work
to set straight.

Maybe the time is better spent on outlining the addition
of abstract scalar types to Ada?