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
Path: 
 border1.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!backlog3.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Text_IO, was: Re: Something I don't understand
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 09:25:59 +0100
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <7iyn6lkvmah5.3its3xiwx9xz$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <4a3e55f6-9f54-4084-9f37-96efd4b0d349@googlegroups.com>
 <ad687a22-84c1-4c7d-bf8d-023fda30d849@googlegroups.com>
 <e7a5d697-12d1-4150-b713-3ce1156f158d@googlegroups.com>
 <0b358700-871b-4603-addd-65e07c7d59e5@googlegroups.com>
 <wcc1tz3al9l.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <ldpv63$vc0$1@dont-email.me>
 <wcca9drdoc3.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <ldt0m5$2ad$1@dont-email.me>
 <bmetfvFp5prU1@mid.individual.net> <ldtjgk$o98$1@dont-email.me>
 <bmf9btFrpu3U1@mid.individual.net> <wccha7u4v92.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: I5Na6+WsEzT8WoegI0VZTA.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
X-Original-Bytes: 2692
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:185023
Date: 2014-02-20T09:25:59+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:01:45 -0500, Robert A Duff wrote:

> Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> writes:
> 
>> No, dynamic type safety is not fully "Ada type safe". Ada is (mainly)
>> statically type safe; dynamism only enters in subtype safety.
> 
> Well, if you take the view that "types" are "those things that can be
> checked statically", then all programming languages are statically type
> safe, rendering the notion meaningless.  Even something like 'bash',
> which has only one (static) type.  In this view, 'bash' does zero static
> type checking, yet all the type checking it does is static.

Yes, there is no such thing as a truly untyped language because a type can
always be added afterwards. [However I wonder you supporting that kind
argument, for second time, actually, after you said (rightfully) that there
is written Ada and Reference Manual's Ada.]

The question is how much of the language semantics is mapped on the types,
explicit or implied no matter. That amount makes Ada strongly typed and
bash "untyped."

> In other words, the term "subtype" in Ada is a cheat, deliberately used
> to enable bogus claims about static type safety in Ada, as if the
> run-time checks associated with subtypes somehow don't count.

Yes, they do not count. Constraint_Error is not a failed check, it is a
contracted behavior.

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