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 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx05.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!newsfeed.fsmpi.rwth-aachen.de!news-1.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!news.uni-weimar.de!medsec1.medien.uni-weimar.de!lucks From: Stefan.Lucks@uni-weimar.de Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is this expected behavior or not Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 17:16:59 +0200 Organization: Bauhaus-Universitaet Weimar Message-ID: References: <1u72u7h5j4jg3$.wlxmaltyzqik.dlg@40tude.net> <1gnmajx2fdjju.1bo28xwmzt1nr.dlg@40tude.net> <3gv2jwc95otm.pl2aahsh9ox8.dlg@40tude.net> <1gkxiwepaxvtt$.u3ly33rbwthf.dlg@40tude.net> <1fmcdkj58brky.bjedt0pr39cd$.dlg@40tude.net> <1bj564vat3q1j$.1s4d00rlzx4ux$.dlg@40tude.net> <4hzv51v872q2$.1imijbwd7heqm$.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: medsec1.medien.uni-weimar.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="8323329-365477592-1365175020=:31361" X-Trace: tigger.scc.uni-weimar.de 1365175091 28982 141.54.178.228 (5 Apr 2013 15:18:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@tigger.scc.uni-weimar.de NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 15:18:11 +0000 (UTC) X-X-Sender: lucks@debian In-Reply-To: <4hzv51v872q2$.1imijbwd7heqm$.dlg@40tude.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:14873 Date: 2013-04-05T17:16:59+02:00 List-Id: This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323329-365477592-1365175020=:31361 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE On Fri, 5 Apr 2013, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:45:55 +0200, Stefan.Lucks@uni-weimar.de wrote: > >> But what reasons would you have to actually mix >> narrow, Wide_ and Wide_Wide_ Strings? > > What is at least one reason to distinguish them? I agree with you that there is no reason to distinguish between them. The= =20 entire distinction narrow, Wide_ and Wide_Wide_ Strings (and Characters)=20 is a historical artifact, no more, no less. But if there is no reason to disting between them -- there is no reason to= =20 mix them either! Right now, the best you can do if you really have to use different of=20 these String types is the following: 1. convert everything into a single type (probably Wide_Wide_String), 2. do your work. 3. and convert back (if you really have to). > Once answered, please name a reason to distinguish UTF-16, UTF-8, UCS-2 e= tc > strings in assignment, comparison, concatenation. I agree, there is none. Which is precicely why one should not need any=20 mixed-representation operations. > The difference between Randy and me, is that he wants to scrap all > operations Ada 83 strings had. Since this would be clearly incompatible > with existing programs, he wants to add them as completely new types, as = if > we had not enough string types in the language already. I think, I agree with Randy here. The old bunch of strings are a mess,=20 that has historically evolved and is far beyond repair. Trying to repair=20 it by adding support for mixed operations gives birth to a gazillion of=20 new cockroaches. ------ I love the taste of Cryptanalysis in the morning! ------ --Stefan.Lucks (at) uni-weimar.de, Bauhaus-Universit=E4t Weimar, Germany-- --8323329-365477592-1365175020=:31361--