Re: Reprise: 'in out' parameters for functions

[wojtek@power.com.pl (Wojtek Narczynski)]

Dimitry,

>> You silently refused to say what abstraction inversion is according
>> to you :-)

> We can use your definition if you want. (:-))

My impression was that, according to you, mine was wrong. Certainly, I
would prefer to use the right one.

---

>> Then we're talking about two distinct things. I am talking about a
>> compile time solution only.
 
> Why should they be distinct? 

Checking physical units statically would be helpful for high integrity
software. I don't see any practical use for runtime unit checks.

---

> I didn't say that (2) is not solvable. I just invited you to think about it
> more deeply, before making some final statements. 

It is unclear to me what final statements you are referring to.

---

> Discriminants can be of access types.

Good point, my bad.

---

> Here you create a new class of types, limited in some particular way. Doing
> so, you have to precisely define this class, you have to name it, you have
> to consider types other than exceptions of being of this class, you have to
> give it a formal name for generics and so on and so far. And in the end you
> have to answer some newbie, why Ada does it that complex!

Fortunately a distinct class already exists, and it's called
exceptions. I'd only extend it to be able to convey some additional
info down the callstack, but the added complexity is, of course, a
valid point.


Regards,
Wojtek