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: a07f3367d7,39579ad87542da0e X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8 X-Received: by 10.180.14.40 with SMTP id m8mr2938273wic.7.1369279394544; Wed, 22 May 2013 20:23:14 -0700 (PDT) Path: fw11ni1135wic.0!nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!82.197.223.103.MISMATCH!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!82.197.223.108.MISMATCH!feeder2.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!news.panservice.it!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!newsfeeder.ewetel.de!eweka.nl!lightspeed.eweka.nl!193.141.40.65.MISMATCH!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 11:14:09 +0200 From: "G.B." 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: Seeking for papers about tagged types vs access to subprograms References: <17ceq51ydy3s0.s94miqqzbg5w.dlg@40tude.net> <1vrhb7oc4qbob$.q02vuouyovp5$.dlg@40tude.net> <19lrzzbgm77v6.1dzpgqckptaj6.dlg@40tude.net> <1bp6zlpetr5l4.12a9zcd1x3yya.dlg@40tude.net> <1jc46ynzptlxm.1fafjhr8hlblq.dlg@40tude.net> <1wzphazeho17m$.zy00zh7l7yu5$.dlg@40tude.net> In-Reply-To: <1wzphazeho17m$.zy00zh7l7yu5$.dlg@40tude.net> Message-ID: <519351e2$0$6584$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> Organization: Arcor NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 May 2013 11:14:10 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 2982b8c9.newsspool3.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=Df6J\olf;U]U6b:FjPaGjQMcF=Q^Z^V3X4Fo<]lROoRQ8kFZLh>_cHTX3j]`IKE65JTU:T X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: 2013-05-15T11:14:10+02:00 List-Id: On 14.05.13 10:32, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > You suggest that there could be a way to convince people like you by > presenting some formalism? Seriously? You would reject the formalism using > same methods you and others did before. We could not even agree on the > notion of type! Not even on IMPROTANCE of types for Ada! Agreement on the notion of type, or on importance of types for Ada, is achieved precisely when you semi-formally establish a possibility for others to understand your meaning. I meant it. As is usual in semi-formal discourse, words ask for definitions. Politely presuming that others find everything obvious cannot is obviously not working. One way to create a meaningful semi-formal basis is to add a subscript to words, a subscript that identifies which of the possible meanings the reader should assume. In fact, the suffix "for Ada" in your "types for Ada" corresponds with one such subscripting operation. Then, if there is a single, consistent KAVOA notion of type, if this notion is a prerequisite for your considerations, then surely the KAVOA notion of type can be defined using n declarative statments, {Stmt_1, ..., Stmt_n}. Let the name of this notion of type be Type[∆]. Likewise, if the Ada notion of type is defined by {Stmt_1', ..., Stmt_m'}, then let the name of this notion of type be Type[✇]. Use any notation you like and that you and your readers understand, but do use notation. Then there is starting point for comparisons, for speaking meaningfully about changes and their effects, etc., because you and your readers see (from the subscript) the objects of comparison, and the objects of change.