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: a07f3367d7,73cb216d191f0fef
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.180.106.161 with SMTP id gv1mr17444461wib.4.1366858119677;
        Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:48:39 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 hg5ni24002wib.1!nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!82.197.223.108.MISMATCH!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!194.109.133.86.MISMATCH!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed3.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!border4.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!rt.uk.eu.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is this expected behavior or not
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:18:00 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <hio9qb0ob6az.13z9i9wft23vx$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <c988e09f-8532-4840-9749-b61aa39551b4@googlegroups.com>
 <3gv2jwc95otm.pl2aahsh9ox8.dlg@40tude.net> <kjfk1t$38n$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <1gkxiwepaxvtt$.u3ly33rbwthf.dlg@40tude.net> <kjig2j$nof$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <1fmcdkj58brky.bjedt0pr39cd$.dlg@40tude.net> <kjknuu$gc8$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <1bj564vat3q1j$.1s4d00rlzx4ux$.dlg@40tude.net> <kjnt9t$ia$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <igo6blwn0oas$.wifvpq91hm9m.dlg@40tude.net> <kk27vf$uco$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <8bj2k30k7i19.w7ehsldwbf7x.dlg@40tude.net> <kk4ns0$7b7$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <1o34nhpfuy6yl$.2orlukd1elr7.dlg@40tude.net> <kk7fes$c3a$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <lhy7cs9p0v0t.jmyir4bofwok.dlg@40tude.net> <kka8ge$7n4$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <gj0dksp3fqws$.15ahjs6oqwquj.dlg@40tude.net> <kkia8u$ljq$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <144bgnv8rdks7$.1o76z1eh196ks$.dlg@40tude.net> <kkkl0h$v4d$1@munin.nbi.dk>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: FbOMkhMtVLVmu7IwBnt1tw.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: 2013-04-17T09:18:00+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 17:57:20 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote:

> One type for one purpose. If you think you need different representations 
> for a type, you're clearly mixing purposes and that's bad.

This is deeply wrong. In software engineering we have functional and
non-functional requirements to deal with the situation that no computing
system can adequately reflect the problem space. Semantics is functional.
Representation is non-functional and to large extent arbitrary. This is why
same things can and must be implemented differently using different
representations and different algorithms for its operations within the same
system. Which is why Ada has infinite number of string types (counting
bounded strings) which serve single purpose of dealing with sequences of
characters.

If you think otherwise your proposal should be a universal string type
suitable for all systems from tiny embedded targets, for all memory
management strategies, for all types of encoding, for all character sets.

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