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: 103376,f93e461e8491e322
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!proxad.net!proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Limited_Controlled, orthogonality and related issues
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <eoned5$663$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
 <wccvej3m3vk.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <1xayd4jh8w33a.1meq1440lgi4v.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wccfya7m0ra.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <saxsio4vbe0z.579ds1eq9cv4$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wcc8xfylqkf.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 11:14:35 +0100
Message-ID: <hlxdim4zli9h.1nyrp856eep75.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Jan 2007 11:14:21 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: c4b8325f.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=Y]]6P5>GGLK74okIm;?DS@4IUK<Cl32<A4Fo<]lROoRA4nDHegD_]REQ8mAKO871BJDNcfSJ;bb[EIRnRBaCd<MN_^d_lDOcTbIE?189?95>XH
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8357
Date: 2007-01-20T11:14:21+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:17:04 -0500, Robert A Duff wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> 
>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:36:57 -0500, Robert A Duff wrote:
>>
>>> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
>>> 
>> We could make all types "tagged" with non-stored tags. The keyword "tagged"
>> would mean a stored tag + by-reference semantics. This looks fully backward
>> compatible to me, at first glance.
> 
> OK, that might work.  I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with it
> "at first glance".  ;-)  I suppose abstract subprograms would cause
> minor troubles...
> 
> Perhaps you should push for this in Ada 2015 or 2025.  ;-)

I am pushing for it all the time!.. (:-))

>> As for legacy exceptions, we should choose a model first. Is End_Error a
>> type (derived from Root_Exception) or a value of Root_Exception?
> 
> End_Error should be a type (in this fantasy version of Ada).

Then we have the first problem. Types cannot be renamed in Ada. Exceptions
can be.

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