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-Thread: 103376,4e5770c49b971630
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!b19g2000yqg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Cyrille <comar@eu.adacore.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: High-Integrity OO and controlled types
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 02:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <beefc106-01b0-4dec-ae7b-2ef41b1c7c78@b19g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
References: <d8204576-14ff-41a4-b850-ace9c15872d4@v8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <679e3217-98dd-43c1-86f6-2038a029c3ea@b19g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
 <94f3a272-d071-4a74-bfbd-8f2b4c2347cf@m10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 <cba1e286-d160-4f75-aebc-74f82ce78f30@26g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.98.77.125
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1304415175 17413 127.0.0.1 (3 May 2011 09:32:55
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 09:32:55 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: b19g2000yqg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=194.98.77.125;
 posting-account=bNhsVwoAAAB6XmNPWgYcbUm6npIwL2C4
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.9.2.16)
 Gecko/20110319 Firefox/3.6.16 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19137
Date: 2011-05-03T02:32:55-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On May 2, 9:25=A0pm, Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homep...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Excluding controlled types altogether sounded like throwing baby out
> with the water, but now the motivations are a bit more clear to me.
>

HI profiles are usually much more constrained. The first goal of this
document is to gather the necessary information to make it possible to
build a safety case when using tagged types and more generally OOP in
a HI context. Usually those are banned along with almost all the
"advanced" features of the language. So no baby thrown with the water.
This is a the other way around: we put more water in the bath so that
maybe one day we can consider bathing your "controlled" baby ;-)

Once tagged types and their additional verification activities are
accepted, adding "controlled" types to the mix doesn't require a major
step forward and becomes mostly a matter of cost since there would be
additional runtime to certify and a more complex source to object
traceability.