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 Path: border1.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.glorb.com!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!usenet-fr.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 19:38:34 +0200 From: Georg Bauhaus User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is this expected behavior or not References: <1gnmajx2fdjju.1bo28xwmzt1nr.dlg@40tude.net> <3gv2jwc95otm.pl2aahsh9ox8.dlg@40tude.net> <1gkxiwepaxvtt$.u3ly33rbwthf.dlg@40tude.net> <1fmcdkj58brky.bjedt0pr39cd$.dlg@40tude.net> <1bj564vat3q1j$.1s4d00rlzx4ux$.dlg@40tude.net> <8bj2k30k7i19.w7ehsldwbf7x.dlg@40tude.net> <1o34nhpfuy6yl$.2orlukd1elr7.dlg@40tude.net> <5167d6c6$0$6633$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> <1pt6x8kuyyrc4$.fkrabsc77z66$.dlg@40tude.net> In-Reply-To: <1pt6x8kuyyrc4$.fkrabsc77z66$.dlg@40tude.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <51699815$0$6566$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> Organization: Arcor NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Apr 2013 19:38:29 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 6cab1c97.newsspool4.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=Y[^34e6W`M@=8m7nZkdN^@4IUKejVHb`1W31; ; HiA8@l0^jem@iF X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de X-Original-Bytes: 4163 Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:181049 Date: 2013-04-13T19:38:29+02:00 List-Id: On 12.04.13 13:46, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 11:41:25 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > >> On 12.04.13 10:17, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >>>>>> For instance, I tend to write out the entire name of the conversion >>>>>>>>> between string and unbounded string: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ada.Text_IO.Put_Line (Ada.Strings.Unbounded.To_String (My_Object)); >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hideous. What kind of information this mess should convey to the reader? >>>>>>> 2/3 of it is noise. My_Object is a string, why Put_Line does not handle >>>>>>> it? >>>>> >>>>> It's a "string", not a String. >>> And*semantically* the difference is? >> >> The difference is in the meaning that one assigns to "String". >> "One" refers to one of two minds performing the assignment: >> >> (a) he who considers a program as per how Ada is defined, >> literally. >> >> (b) he who considers a program in terms of definitions that >> underlie the the definition of Ada, though not literally. > > I gather that in your opinion: > > 1. There is no semantic difference between String and Unbounded_String. The difference is between definitions of semantics (sic), I said. Semantics is not an absolute. So the meaning of "string" depends on the assignment of meaning to "string". Here is where there is a difference. It is an interesting one. I have not made any value judgments. One vague hint is a what "string" means is in a certain view of Put. Another equally rational reference to definitions says that Ada defines String to be this-and-that, and nothing else. Both are assignments of meaning to "string". Both are rational. They differ, usefully. For the sake of an example, let array interfaces be a related issue. Then, in order to remove all the fog, unveil the statue, just outline, en detail, for compiler-aware dummies, step by step, how a compiler would check the user defined array thing for correctness, Ada style, producing suitable calls of suitably checked user-supplied array operations, compatible with uses of arrays in places where they can be used today.