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 10.66.90.102 with SMTP id bv6mr578233pab.34.1344617106181;
        Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 c10ni101146pbw.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Should Inline be private in the private part of a package spec?
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:45:03 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <c4db9c9a-1b9c-48a7-98ac-af894fc1783f@googlegroups.com>
References: <501bd285$0$6564$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <e416cb92-6ec8-4514-8fa9-c35d6432b117@googlegroups.com>
 <wcc4noj4zof.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <jvnchp$r5c$1@munin.nbi.dk> <wccr4rkqed5.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <op.wiml9rw3ka8ora@aspire.local>
 <502005b6$0$9510$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <op.wim0pbprka8ora@aspire.local>
 <50203ca2$0$9512$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <502040c0$0$9510$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <k01amo$jio$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <50677fa2-7f82-4ccc-8c56-161bf67fefe1@googlegroups.com>
 <3235054d-3832-4127-83f1-784a3ee50d01@googlegroups.com>
 <xsxy7zf5hycd$.85ey2djah2lz$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.20.190.126
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1344617104 1094 127.0.0.1 (10 Aug 2012 16:45:04
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 16:45:04 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
In-Reply-To: <xsxy7zf5hycd$.85ey2djah2lz$.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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2012-08-10T09:45:03-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Friday, August 10, 2012 1:37:04 AM UTC-6, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>=20
> However the point is valid. The OS should be natively OO and the Ada sour=
ce
> 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 s=
hould handle files. It should have files [strongly-]typed, perhaps with a v=
alidated flag to indicate that that type is known to be true (perhaps the t=
ype indicator implemented as a signed 64-bit integer, which would have a ma=
gnitude 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, assumin=
g 2's complement, could indicate truly unknown]). Furthermore, each file-ty=
pe should have a corresponding object which knows how to read, write & vali=
date itself.