Re: Text_IO, was: Re: Something I don't understand

[Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid>]

On 14-02-20 11:52 , Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 23:45:47 +0200, Niklas Holsti wrote:

>>>> I don't see any need for converting a File/Stream *into* Text, unless
>>>> the File/Stream is a serialized representation of the full internal
>>>> structure of a Text object, in which case the File/Stream structure is
>>>> private and normal serialization/deserialization methods apply.

Dmitry wrote:

>>> But your proposal was:
>>>
>>>    procedure Get (From : in out Text; Value : out Integer);
>>>    procedure Get (From : in out File_Type; Item : out Text);

Niklas wrote:

>> No, I proposed Put operations, not Get operations. "Text" (that is, text
>> (2)) is meant only for output, not for input. For input, use text (1).
> 
> Only Text_O? No Text_I at all?

Exactly. That is, for text in the meaning (2), structured text intended
for human viewing. Text data files (sequences of characters) of course
need both input and output, as provided today by Text_IO.

All your other points just take us further from a common understanding
(as usual when I discuss something with you, unfortunately).

>>> And so you need it extensible, ergo, a class.
>>
>> Not so, if we accept the same rationale as for Ada.Containers: they are
>> meant for use in applications without extreme or special demands on the
>> performance of the containers.
> 
> Ada container library was wrong design from the start. But that is another
> story for another day.

Yeah, I know you want to start over on Ada. Feel free, I will certainly
read your novo-Ada language proposal with interest (seriously, not
joking at all). But it needs to have a concrete rationale and
motivation, not philosophical abstractions.

-- 
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
      .      @       .