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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,73cb216d191f0fef
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.224.189.78 with SMTP id dd14mr13935154qab.0.1363194307566;
        Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.49.24.227 with SMTP id x3mr1624437qef.10.1363194307535; Wed,
 13 Mar 2013 10:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 k8ni1qas.0!nntp.google.com!dd2no244750qab.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51408e81$0$6577$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=69.20.190.126;
 posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.20.190.126
References: <c988e09f-8532-4840-9749-b61aa39551b4@googlegroups.com>
 <wccfw017lkv.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <b9c8e444-4fcc-489f-8101-0a2873807987@googlegroups.com>
 <mtz6eyrgv524.r2yf3jw9vid3$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wccmwu8r0xh.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <8klywqh2pf$.1f949flc1xeia.dlg@40tude.net>
 <513f6e2f$0$6572$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <b3jec1s37hwu$.bg5cvsul0r5$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <513faaf7$0$6626$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <aufd7vornmrk.2dxqrc3egrtg$.dlg@40tude.net> <khphpb$5f1$1@dont-email.me>
 <w46epyd1vjc2.1e1bviaog2kwi$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <51408e81$0$6577$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <dc71f389-dbfa-493f-8ca2-36445f130b4f@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Is this expected behavior or not
From: Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:05:07 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2013-03-13T10:05:07-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 8:34:41 AM UTC-6, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>=20
> External observations inspired by whichever type theory do
> not apply when judging things from the Ada perspective.
> I'd find observations interesting only when someone is pondering
> language design, not when explaining properties of an existing
> language. Randy mentioned a time machine...

I don't know, I think that if I could alter the the past (Ada 83) for some =
minor alterations it would be to include null-exclusion on access types... =
seems like that would have been far more useful in-practice than mucking ab=
out with 'Pred/'Succ or 'First/'Last. -- child packages would have been nic=
e from the inception, but I don't think the compiler-writers would have tol=
erated the added complexity there given that as it was Ada 83 was pushing t=
he bleeding-edge bounds of compiler technology.