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=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ae9506fd4dcf7090
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-10-23 07:39:47 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!news1.dtag.de!RRZ.Uni-Koeln.DE!uni-duisburg.de!not-for-mail
From: Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Concatenation and Characters
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:39:47 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: GMUGHDU
Message-ID: <ap6cbj$lf9$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
References: <ysgp9.714$_u6.401@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
 <3ZTs9.1528$Bd4.11780@dfw-service2.ext.raytheon.com>
 <n658ru0mdrqfl6d4k3f9htvkfcku64muok@4ax.com>
 <ap1l37$mbh$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <ap381k$qlpkr$1@ID-77047.news.dfncis.de>
 <ap3eu7$3r2$3@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <i3ncruorrn9nb7c5ce88avqperg3ffr50c@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de
X-Trace: a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de 1035383987 21993 134.91.1.34 (23 Oct 2002
 14:39:47 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.uni-duisburg.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:39:47 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: tin/1.5.8-20010221 ("Blue Water") (UNIX) (HP-UX/B.11.00
 (9000/800))
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:30077
Date: 2002-10-23T14:39:47+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
: 
: semantics check => halting problem

halting problem => infinite program/data size
(otherwise just hard work, may take too long or not)

: In this case "bowl" and "filled" have different semantics. "bowl" can
: be left uninitailized (I assume that "glass" isn't controlled),
: "filled" shall be always set. So I wished that this difference would
: be exposed through the syntax. Which way, it is another question.

But which way is there to satisfy any request made this way?
Is there any way to be sure that bit(n) of memory(k) or
register(m) will be "valid", so filled does reflect what it was
intended to reflect?
As you said, that's difficult, or worse than that, right?

: then the compiler would complain that this form of parameter
: specification is allowed for only the types having initial values.

Ah, o.k., but can this be done for deeply nested specifications?

-- georg