Re: Modular types inside records

[niewiap@widzew.net (Pawe� Niewiadomski)]

bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) wrote in
<wccd7gr385o.fsf@world.std.com>: 

>
>It can be made to work.
>
>But I don't think this is a good use of modular types.  Instead, use a
>normal (signed) integer type ("range 0..Whatever"), and use an explicit
>"mod" operation, or an explicit if statement.  That makes the code more
>readable, by making it clear what's going on at the "wraparound" place.
>
>- Bob
>

I don't think that adding a couple of if statements makes the code more 
readable.  On the contrary:  if someone looks at the record and sees a 
modular type, he says: OK, so I don't have to worry about constraint 
errors; I can get down to the important stuff.  My implementations of the 
empty and full functions are just one-line-long and add and remove 
procedures each take up as much as five lines of code.  Imagine what they 
would look like if you had to check for constraint errors every time.  The 
package body would be much less readable than it is now.
I don't like explicit programming too much, anyways.  I guess I am too much 
of a C++-type simplicity addict.

Pawel