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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.66.122.137 with SMTP id ls9mr125058pab.17.1403078151977; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:55:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.86.21 with SMTP id o21mr6747qgd.24.1403078151904; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:55:51 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!xmission!news.glorb.com!r2no3393178igi.0!news-out.google.com!q9ni11542qaj.0!nntp.google.com!w8no5522854qac.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:55:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <57qf222vyy01$.qjeaddzypcw2.dlg@40tude.net> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=195.182.34.254; posting-account=bMuEOQoAAACUUr_ghL3RBIi5neBZ5w_S NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.182.34.254 References: <1402308235.2520.153.camel@pascal.home.net> <85ioo9yukk.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <9qednXOIGNDuLQXORVn_vwA@giganews.com> <1872904482424209024.314619laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org> <810507a4-427e-42bb-a468-e5939a4470db@googlegroups.com> <9qbfr6yf0gnb.182y1qs9eigz4$.dlg@40tude.net> <1lk5etrvv7sy2$.p7h015lw2pmn$.dlg@40tude.net> <86ab6158-7273-4696-b4be-ceb950c7f218@googlegroups.com> <57qf222vyy01$.qjeaddzypcw2.dlg@40tude.net> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: a new language, designed for safety ! From: Maciej Sobczak Injection-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 07:55:51 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:20423 Date: 2014-06-18T00:55:51-07:00 List-Id: > It is never blurred, cannot be. It could be ill-defined, yes. But in a > *well-defined* formal language What is *well-defined*? If a language allows me to extend it by importing m= ore syntax features by means of a library import, is that well-defined? I don't see why any given definition (in particular yours) shall be more bi= nding than others. > each syntactic construct is either legal or > not. What if it becomes legal by means of library import? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_programming > > You are trying to give your own definitions as if they are universal > > truth. >=20 > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_%28computing%29 >=20 > Straight in the first sentence. It's a pity you have stopped reading there. Further in the same article: "Most compiled languages have a standard library" The "standard library" is a link, which brings us to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_library which contains (second paragraph): "A language's standard library is often treated as part of the language [..= .]" > > My definition is: language and its standard library are > > indivisible. What now? >=20 > Then it does not make sense to distinguish them. Thus there is no library > at all. Fine. Which brings us two posts back to containers, arrays, allocators and = operators. What was the point of your previous statements that some of thes= e should be in the language while others should be in the library if now yo= u say that the distinction itself is meaningless? --=20 Maciej Sobczak * http://www.msobczak.com * http://www.inspirel.com