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: 103376,5bcc293dc5642650
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.46.193 with SMTP id x1mr6202531pbm.7.1319011910244;
        Wed, 19 Oct 2011 01:11:50 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 d5ni31263pbc.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!news2.euro.net!feeder.news-service.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Why no Ada.Wide_Directories?
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:12:16 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <87algkxiw7ne$.51txpjuv67rk.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <9937871.172.1318575525468.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prib32>
 <418b8140-fafb-442f-b91c-e22cc47f8adb@y22g2000pri.googlegroups.com>
 <j7i6va$nso$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <7156122c-b63f-487e-ad1b-0edcc6694a7a@u10g2000prl.googlegroups.com>
 <ffeeb5d0-5685-42ff-a141-72bea410f239@u10g2000prl.googlegroups.com>
 <409c81ab-bd54-493b-beb4-a0cca99ec306@p27g2000prp.googlegroups.com>
 <d831c4d8-3540-44cb-8976-e588e22b4c59@l10g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
 <a3j4wzrhrj65$.bkkht9t97w84.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1c336f5a-3582-46e1-971c-b11b01527fb1@p14g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: FbOMkhMtVLVmu7IwBnt1tw.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
Xref: news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18592
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2011-10-19T10:12:16+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:42:51 -0700 (PDT), Adam Beneschan wrote:

> Which I think is more evidence of why it was wrong to have the
> String type, an array of characters, do double duty as an array-of-
> encoded-bytes type.

There is nothing wrong for a string to have an array interface. Wrong is
the language design which requires the implementation of that interface in
a certain way that is inconsistent with the type semantics.

It should have been:

   type String_Index is range ...;
   type Octet_Index is range ...;

   type UTF8_String is
      private array (String_Index range <>) of Wide_Wide_Character
   and
      private array (Octet_Index range <>) of Unsigned_8;

private
   type UTF8_String is array (Octet_Index range <>) of Unsigned_8;

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