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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,36a29c2860aff686
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!v19g2000yqa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Properties
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:43:12 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <7c064ffc-8454-471f-bade-62b4309b7290@v19g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
References: <3b84c8e7-1a51-4a7c-9646-119f1fc51478@s4g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
 <qk744lf7asxq.1pc60r0z56jdl$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 174.28.198.93
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1290973392 27491 127.0.0.1 (28 Nov 2010 19:43:12
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 19:43:12 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: v19g2000yqa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=174.28.198.93;
 posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12)
 Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0E),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15688
Date: 2010-11-28T11:43:12-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Nov 28, 1:15=A0am, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 19:21:55 -0800 (PST), Shark8 wrote:
> > I would like to submit a proposal for future Ada development; namely
> > "Properties."
>
> Instead of properties I would prefer a full abstraction of record, array,
> access, numeric types. E.g. you declare something as a record of certain
> members and privately implement it as another record with other members o=
r
> as anything you like providing operations to read/write the publicly
> declared members. I think it is a more simple and more natural to Ada mod=
el
> than properties.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Dmitry A. Kazakovhttp://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

I'm not sure I see the difference between properties and your "full-
abstraction"; that is to say, aren't properties merely a way of
implementing that sort of abstraction (though with the additional
option of being read-only or write-only)?

Couldn't we have something similar to

Type Something is record
 S : String_Property;
end record;

--private or body

Default_State : Constant String:=3D "ANGRY KITTEN";
Stateful_Data : Not Null Access String:=3D
     New String'(Default_State);
For Something.S'Read Use Stateful_Data.All;

Procedure Set_Data( Input : In String ) is
begin
 if Input =3D "PLAYFUL KITTEN" OR Input =3D "RABID KITTEN" OR
    Input =3D "ANGRY KITTEN" OR Input =3D "DEAD KITTEN" then
   Stateful_Data :=3D New String'( Input );
  end if;
end Set_Data;
For Something.S'Write use Set_Data;

Or am I completely misunderstanding your intent?
Also, do you have a possible syntax for these abstractions? {it may
help me fully-understand your position.}