Re: Is this expected behavior or not

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

On 16.03.13 14:04, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:37:33 +0100, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>
>> On 16.03.13 11:27, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>
>>>> And "contract" adds another source of lexical ambiguities.
>>>
>>> Source of lexical ambiguities? This sounds like an encoding problem.
>>
>> It is a problem of semantics.
>
> A problem of semantics is lexical ambiguity...?

Lexical ambiguity as in "This word can be understood in two or more
different ways".  The word "contract" is of this kind, which is one
cause of heated debate.


> Why don't you simply explain why in your opinion Positive is not a type?

Whether or not Positive'Succ *is* invariant depends solely on definitions
of Ada, not on my opinion. Whether or not 'Succ *should* become something
else in order for a certain kind of types-with-predicates to work has been,
and is an interesting question. It is not satisfactorily answered, though,
by saying the what *is* is not what it is but claiming that it is what it
*should* be (algebraic "sub-types", inheritance, whatever). It isn't (both
senses).


> To paraphrase Omar: if those books are in agreement with the RM, we have no
> need of them; and if these are opposed to the RM, destroy them. (:-))

I only asked that words should be marked as referring to Ada or to something else.