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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,9d303864ae4c70ad X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-13 15:41:44 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: wojtek@power.com.pl (Wojtek Narczynski) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Reprise: 'in out' parameters for functions Date: 13 Apr 2004 15:41:44 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <5ad0dd8a.0404131441.20b8a942@posting.google.com> References: <5ad0dd8a.0404090512.15af2908@posting.google.com> <5ad0dd8a.0404091828.6e79bb4e@posting.google.com> <5ad0dd8a.0404100735.7b2a8317@posting.google.com> <5ad0dd8a.0404130130.66d5e721@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.27.17.147 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1081896104 29375 127.0.0.1 (13 Apr 2004 22:41:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:41:44 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7063 Date: 2004-04-13T15:41:44-07:00 List-Id: 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