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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,39579ad87542da0e
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.224.130.195 with SMTP id u3mr22394310qas.1.1368583773290;
        Tue, 14 May 2013 19:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 y6ni44345qax.0!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.news.ucla.edu!nrc-news.nrc.ca!News.Dal.Ca!citadel.nobulus.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Seeking for papers about tagged types vs access to subprograms
Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 08:40:51 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <bkozr3g5i0hk$.15qnfap6hrj20$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <op.wv8jh1c1ule2fv@cardamome> <op.wwbvqzkeule2fv@cardamome>
 <op.wwnp2zkrule2fv@cardamome> <u3jaslg5kca7.1gk5ds3d4sx2y$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <op.wwnsmtteule2fv@cardamome> <17ceq51ydy3s0.s94miqqzbg5w.dlg@40tude.net>
 <op.wwny5jerule2fv@cardamome> <1vrhb7oc4qbob$.q02vuouyovp5$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <op.wwn4oak8ule2fv@cardamome> <19lrzzbgm77v6.1dzpgqckptaj6.dlg@40tude.net>
 <kmbohm$elb$1@loke.gir.dk> <p0pf97g5w6xg.jhca6ztjwpde$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <kmebjm$eds$1@loke.gir.dk> <1bp6zlpetr5l4.12a9zcd1x3yya.dlg@40tude.net>
 <kmh5a3$sfb$1@loke.gir.dk> <1jc46ynzptlxm.1fafjhr8hlblq.dlg@40tude.net>
 <kmk278$t5m$1@loke.gir.dk>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: 15waz9CoS+eMakbyhTPyFQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2013-05-11T08:40:51+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 10 May 2013 19:09:12 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message 
> news:1jc46ynzptlxm.1fafjhr8hlblq.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Thu, 9 May 2013 16:43:29 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> ...
>>> The problem is, when you do that, you'd have no way to determine whether 
>>> or not it is really compatible. (After all, there is no formal model for 
>>> Ada, and there never has been.) Ada's definition is just a mass of English 
>>> text, and replacing it by a different mass of English text leaves one no 
>>> practical way to prove compatibility.
>>
>> Why should I need it if no existing Ada compiler does that? It will be as
>> compatible as any existing Ada implementation is. There is no reason to
>> require more than that, e.g. formal verification.
> 
> Because there is no other way to tell. No one is going to implement it (or 
> put it into the Standard) unless they know that it is "at least as 
> compatible as an existing Ada implementation". You're going to have to prove 
> that somehow, and that proof is going to have to be at least semi-formal, 
> because it is going to have to be convincing. Handwaving in a forum like 
> this is not a convincing proof.

You didn't answer the question. If it goes without a proof now, why can it
continue so?

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de