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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no 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,ASCII-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.180.77.230 with SMTP id v6mr19799wiw.0.1363918479391;
        Thu, 21 Mar 2013 19:14:39 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 p18ni6019wiv.0!nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!85.12.40.139.MISMATCH!xlned.com!feeder7.xlned.com!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!border2.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!takemy.news.telefonica.de!telefonica.de!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed4.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!news.stack.nl!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is this expected behavior or not
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 11:27:11 +0100
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <67810vo62ikk$.sn112ruycoaw.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <ki034o$6g6$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <hiybjkhz3p5d.1x6dxfr1ptgcg.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1320854478385114328.944480rm-host.bauhaus-maps.arcor.de@news.arcor.de>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: p+zKE0HPHYmgiZzsZLLeGQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2013-03-16T11:27:11+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 16 Mar 2013 09:30:29 GMT, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:17:11 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> 
>>> "I doubt that many would agree with that." That's certainly true, but that's 
>>> because few would agree with you on the notion that the contract does not 
>>> include the dynamic behavior. In any case, either *you* have to agree with 
>>> this premise (and thus all of your arguments on type vs. subtypes are 
>>> nonsense), or you are no longer agreeing with your previous statements about 
>>> contracts (which I for one would welcome, but it's seems pretty unlikely of 
>>> a change).
>> 
>> I don't see why. How *any* contract could make something like Positive a
>> non-type?
> 
> Sounds like begging the question, to me.
> 
> And "contract" adds another source of lexical ambiguities.

Source of lexical ambiguities? This sounds like an encoding problem.
Something wrong with your file system?

>> A. Positive is not a type. This is what Georg says. I have no idea what
>> this is supposed to mean.
> 
> It means what the RM says it means.

Which is?

> Subtype constraints are "weak" because in some contexts
> that seemed what was needed.

You read that from the RM?

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de