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,dbbbb21ed7f581b X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!news-1.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!news.uni-weimar.de!not-for-mail From: stefan-lucks@see-the.signature Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Operation can be dispatching in only one type Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:01:11 +0100 Organization: Bauhaus-Universitaet Weimar Message-ID: References: <025105f2-5571-400e-a66f-ef1c3dc9ef32@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> <18wh86jvjvoe0.cofxcc8udm6q$.dlg@40tude.net> <53a35ed9-88ac-43dc-b2a2-8d6880802328@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> <4b091fb9$0$6567$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <1w0q3zxzw79pt$.5z0juiky7kfd$.dlg@40tude.net> <0f177771-381e-493b-92bb-28419dfbe4e6@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> <1nbcfi99y0fkg.1h5ox2lj73okx$.dlg@40tude.net> <59acf311-3a4a-4eda-95a3-22272842305e@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> <3pvk14f2iizi$.b3u242o1oqla.dlg@40tude.net> <15b8l0vp8871o.spmxnk82g75r.dlg@40tude.net> Reply-To: stefan-lucks@see-the.signature NNTP-Posting-Host: medsec1.medien.uni-weimar.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: tigger.scc.uni-weimar.de 1259669072 25954 141.54.178.228 (1 Dec 2009 12:04:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@tigger.scc.uni-weimar.de NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 12:04:32 +0000 (UTC) X-X-Sender: lucks@medsec1.medien.uni-weimar.de In-Reply-To: Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8262 Date: 2009-12-01T09:01:11+01:00 List-Id: On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 06:45:16 +0100, stefan-lucks@see-the.signature wrote: > > > On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:43:21 -0500, Robert A Duff wrote: > > > >>> Right. I think they should be equivalent. My solution is to use > >>> two different symbols for (initial) assignment and (subsequent) > >>> reassignment. > >> > >> But they cannot be, otherwise the semantics of ":=" would depend on the > >> things done before: > >> > >> X : T; > >> begin > >> X := F (Y); -- Initialization > > > > No, at this point of time, X has been initialised to *some* value, even if > > the value itself is undefined. So this is just a proper assignment. > > You should say that to Bob, because this is exactly my point. No! You just moved to a different topic: [...] > Initialization /= construction does not fit into this picture. The issue was initialisation /= assignment (*) and the fact that in Ada both look syntactically the same. You seem to be the first to mention "construction" at all. BTW, I don't think initialisation and construction are actually identical, even though they have to be performed in close temporal proximity. If construction fails, this is a Storage_Error. A failed Initialisation is much more powerful -- it can raise any of your favourite exceptions. ;-) --------- Footnote: (*) I prefer to avoid the word "reassignment", which Bob would use. -- ------ Stefan Lucks -- Bauhaus-University Weimar -- Germany ------ Stefan dot Lucks at uni minus weimar dot de ------ I love the taste of Cryptanalysis in the morning! ------