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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,9983e856ed268154 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.66.74.6 with SMTP id p6mr196147pav.5.1344634529639; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:35:29 -0700 (PDT) Path: c10ni101146pbw.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Shark8 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Should Inline be private in the private part of a package spec? Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:35:28 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <501bd285$0$6564$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <502005b6$0$9510$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <50203ca2$0$9512$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <502040c0$0$9510$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <50677fa2-7f82-4ccc-8c56-161bf67fefe1@googlegroups.com> <3235054d-3832-4127-83f1-784a3ee50d01@googlegroups.com> <1egt1n41ny80z.myfwptqjdcjt$.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.20.190.126 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1344634529 10414 127.0.0.1 (10 Aug 2012 21:35:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 21:35:29 +0000 (UTC) Cc: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de In-Reply-To: <1egt1n41ny80z.myfwptqjdcjt$.dlg@40tude.net> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=69.20.190.126; posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC User-Agent: G2/1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Date: 2012-08-10T14:35:28-07:00 List-Id: On Friday, August 10, 2012 11:03:08 AM UTC-6, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:45:03 -0700 (PDT), Shark8 wrote: > > > > > On Friday, August 10, 2012 1:37:04 AM UTC-6, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > > >> > > >> However the point is valid. The OS should be natively OO and the Ada source > > >> should be an object implementing various interfaces additionally to the > > >> "text buffer" interface. In some different world, but this one dominated by > > >> living fossils... > > > > > > Indeed so. In fact, I think that's just scraping the surface of how an OS > > > should handle files. It should have files [strongly-]typed, perhaps with a > > > validated flag to indicate that that type is known to be true (perhaps the > > > type indicator implemented as a signed 64-bit integer, which would have a > > > magnitude indicating the file-type; negative values indicating > > > non-validated files. [0 would be a straight-up binary file, as all files > > > would be binary it makes no sense for validation thereon; the > > > extra-negative value, assuming 2's complement, could indicate truly > > > unknown]). Furthermore, each file-type should have a corresponding object > > > which knows how to read, write & validate itself. > > > > No files, only persistent objects. Instead of file type you would have a > > type tag, kept memory protected. The operations would be protected too, so > > that you could not call a wrong operation on the object even if you knew > > its entry point address and used any fancy unchecked conversion stuff. > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Dmitry A. Kazakov > > http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de Files *are* persistent objects... indeed, they are persistent across power-on/power-off cycles, which makes them even more persistent than anything else in the system (save the hardware).