Re: Reprise: 'in out' parameters for functions

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

> I did not disagree with your definition. I did with your statement that
> Ada's protected objects are wrong way. They might have problems, though.
> But it appeared, as you treating them as completely wrong.

"Wrong" seems to be one of your favourite words. I merely said that
Ada concurrency features are not expressive enough not to require
abstraction inversion in many cases.

---

>> Checking physical units statically would be helpful for high
integrity
>> software. I don't see any practical use for runtime unit checks.
 
> Only because I see no smiley... How would you implement:
> 
> procedure Put (Stream : File, Value : Measurement);
> procedure Get (Stream : File, Value : out Measurement);
> 
> For example, a requirement of one of our customer was to have a button in
> his MMI to switch between European and American units in all visual
> elements and printouts. Now go, figure out, how would you solve that using
> templates.

Huhm, we are talking about _checks_, then we are suddenly talking
about _conversions_. But even for conversions, even though they are
most certainly useful in many cases at runtime, the idea to hardcode
the external representation of values with units into the compiler and
runtime, is unfortunate.

---
 
>>> 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.
> 
> That Ada exception model should be replaced by some other.

I hate it when somebody puts words I have not said in my mouth. I
suggest that you proofread your own posts for final statements
instead.


Regards,
Wojtek