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: a07f3367d7,73cb216d191f0fef X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8 X-Received: by 10.180.87.193 with SMTP id ba1mr168338wib.0.1366858236413; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:50:36 -0700 (PDT) Path: hg5ni23993wib.1!nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!82.197.223.103.MISMATCH!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!194.109.133.87.MISMATCH!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed1.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!border4.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!rt.uk.eu.org!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: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 21:38:28 +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: <516e6a0e$0$9505$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <516efa28$0$9518$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> Organization: Arcor NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Apr 2013 21:38:17 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 43e69e80.newsspool1.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=:NOT7790fejVH;Wn1L On 17.04.13 11:57, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >> If the Ada type system cannot express >> time and space, I'll still consider them >> functional requirements. > > And this should justify conflation of a representation with the type > semantics... surely. Representation is functional, like it or not, and it is meaningful, therefore it is semantically important. Nothing is conflated here because semantics is assignment of meaning, not just types-whatever. Provide a different hook for stating functionally important representation and programmers might use it. For example, for this: "Make X a Θ(1) data structure of equally shaped objects of the same subtype, of a certain finite length, indexed by certain discrete values, components well aligned." For sure, type semantics, if that restriction should so easily mean a thing in a real-world programming language, isn't semantics. The meaning of an Ada program, for example, is determined by the implementation (RM 1.1.3). Period. That's also true in other languages. But I can be certain to get the Θ(1) thing mentioned above by making the necessary declarations in Ada, because of the meaning it assigns to "array". String is a good example. String is an array, and nothing else. The existence of RM A.4.({4,5}) is of no consequence. To hell with it. The existence of RM 3.6 is essential, because of array semantics. (And I don't care much about string literals because many are read from external sources during start-up. YMMV.) The only important type for text processing for me is the universal type to be used for defining text character types, because ranges of characters match notions relating to text just like ranges of whole numbers match notions relating to mathematical integers. There are excellent libraries full of text processing operations. If they give rise to universally good operators, excellent! If they need to involve representation, then so be it. I live in and off dirt, not mathematical purity, so long as the latter offers no way to denote functional requirements such as representing objects.