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: 103376,9ce095aba33fe8d0 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed-0.progon.net!progon.net!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!cernne03.cern.ch!cern.ch!news From: Maciej Sobczak Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Negative float problem Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:03:57 +0100 Organization: CERN - European Laboratory for Particle Physics Message-ID: References: <1130351574.313991.229420@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <10mspnley7gzu$.1swtj67sv0ldr$.dlg@40tude.net> <38tcpxwxfigo$.18ysjyp9ml92c$.dlg@40tude.net> <2ybc7t4au7g$.166dxwfrds1so$.dlg@40tude.net> <18nrnlg9zzl5a.k8rl3ajwauqi.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: abpc10883.cern.ch Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sunnews.cern.ch 1130936636 16678 (None) 137.138.37.241 X-Complaints-To: news@sunnews.cern.ch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050922 Red Hat/1.7.12-1.1.3.2.SL3 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: <18nrnlg9zzl5a.k8rl3ajwauqi.dlg@40tude.net> Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6117 Date: 2005-11-02T14:03:57+01:00 List-Id: Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >>>package A is >>> type Foo is ...; >>> function "+" (Left, Right : Foo) return Foo; >>>end A; >>>------------------- >>>package A.B is >>> X : Foo; >>> function "+" (Left, Right : Foo) return Foo; >>>end A.B; >>>------------------ >>>with A.B; >>>... >>>A.B.X + A.B.X -- BOOOOM! >> >>With ADL, I would expect it to call A."+". > > > Which perfectly illustrates why there should be no such thing as ADL. > Exactly to prevent making the above legal with the meaning A."+". > The point is that the language should maintain views properly. As I said - I'm learning Ada. I don't know the language to the extent that allows me to analyze up-front all its corner cases. The fact that simple rules for ADL do not "work" with things like this is not an argument for me. I don't expect ADL to take up at most one sentence in the language reference (it doesn't in C++ :) ) and I'm sure that with a bit of goodwill it is possible to formulate it in a way that is consistent with other language elements - *even* if it takes few sentences more. The problem is that I'm not ready to do this by myself, especially at this stage (and there is no point in doing it, anyway, apart from exercising lawyerese). I treat ADL as a natural and integrated part of the package or namespace concept and as a (prospective) language user I'd rather expect it to be there and be defined consistently with other language elements than to not have it only because people are/were afraid of formulating it with other issues in mind. If Ada can be complex without ADL, then it could be complex with ADL as well. :) As Samuel Tardieu said earlier about the original problem - "... almost any Ada-er has learnt this rule the hard way one day or another". For me this sentence expresses some defficiency in the language. If programmers are bound to having hard rules no matter what, then I'd prefer those rules to be easier in 95% cases and more difficult in the remaining corners than the other way round. Just my thoughts. Thanks for discussion anyway, I'm going to learn Ada *even* without ADL. ;-) -- Maciej Sobczak : http://www.msobczak.com/ Programming : http://www.msobczak.com/prog/