Re: Is this expected behavior or not

[Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

On 15.03.13 10:33, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 19:16:35 +0100, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>
>> 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:
> [...]
>
> You are confusing program with the language of.

I did chose this confused view to demonstrate what will be the
effect of confusing subtype constraints (or not, as in 'Succ)
and types in the sense everyone here is supposed to approach
the word "type". Except when indicated.

Ada is then not a typed LSP language at the level of subtype constraints
and attributes of types. Make it such a language, make it convincing,
and define a model that can be turned into Ada language definitions.

But, please, mark those phrases that say "problem" as "problem
if 'Succ is viewed as a function that is different from how it
is defined" in the universe of c.l.ada, but could be defined
if 'Succ were an operation of a subtype turned ADT (which it
isn't, in Ada).

> OOPL supports certain kinds of ADT's at the language level.

Right. At the language level,
Ada does not support certain kinds of LSP at the subtype level (well),
Ada does not support equating types and subtypes, and
Ada does not support equating ADTs and type with all attributes.

Because type /= subtype, here, at the language level.

That's why I had chosen the OOP view of C. It's not an OOP
at the language level.