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: a07f3367d7,5d4ade2fd8fd67c6
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!feeder.news-service.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Legit Warnings or not
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:41:06 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <a47trh2rfxvh.fy7nhwxd9kpi$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: 
 <531193e0-3305-4292-9ed8-0176226c1d00@x12g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
 <j086nn$aau$1@tornado.tornevall.net> <j08sp2$8qi$2@dont-email.me>
 <1rx6dwrxmc81p.eazb4fjqztox$.dlg@40tude.net> <j0d52c$qq2$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <bvr7wfbofhal$.10mess7c3uv9j.dlg@40tude.net> <j0nbbi$qms$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <1hi6gva8jhf7o.tq1yp29jn3qu.dlg@40tude.net> <j0qb16$rah$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <go2nk5b4odfy.fpdttridydu6$.dlg@40tude.net> <j0ssgf$fia$1@munin.nbi.dk>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: FbOMkhMtVLVmu7IwBnt1tw.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
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:21381
Date: 2011-07-29T09:41:06+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 18:48:30 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message 
> news:go2nk5b4odfy.fpdttridydu6$.dlg@40tude.net...

>> See, this is where you approach leads.
> 
> The compiler can do virtually *anything* better than the programmer.

It can, but there is absolutely no guarantee that it does. In fact the
opposite is true. The resources of a compiler vendor are incomparable with
there resources of the community. More you do at the language level worse
it becomes. (I think this was a discussion in late 60s. Already then it was
clear.)

> The only question is where to draw the line.

Right.

>> No, I want that dynamic arrays were *arrays*. I want that Ada.Container
>> could be selected as an implementation of that array by mere renaming or
>> other kind of delegation:
>>
>>   type A is array (Positive range <>) of S'Class;
>> private
>>   package My_Arrays is
>>      new Ada.Container.Indefinite_Vector (Positive, S'Class);
>>   type A is new My_Array.Container_Type with null record;
>>
>> Is it too much?
> 
> Yes, for Ada it is too much. Anything implemented now has to be compatible 
> with the existing language and implementations.

And where is any incompatibility? Why array or record cannot be interfaces?

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