Re: Concatenation and Characters

[Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 12:05:27 +0000 (UTC), Georg Bauhaus
<sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote:

>Dmitry A.Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
>: Secondly, your example refers to program semantics, not syntax. Semantics 
>: cannot be checked or verified neither formally nor by a human being.
>
>Hmmm....  Wasn't there something in SPARK...

semantics check => halting problem

>: One of 
>: good ideas of Ada design as I see it, was to *syntactically* mark the 
>: constructs which are potentially dangerous, make them visible for both who 
>: writes and who reads the program.
>
>o.K. it is not built into the language, but a syntactically valid
>subprogram a la
>
>  procedure fill(bowl: out glass; filled: out boolean);
>
>does inform readers about a potentially unsatisfying dring?

No. [ Of course, one could write an appropriate comment, but this sort
of things can be well applied to any language even to ugly C++.]

In this case "bowl" and "filled" have different semantics. "bowl" can
be left uninitailized (I assume that "glass" isn't controlled),
"filled" shall be always set. So I wished that this difference would
be exposed through the syntax. Which way, it is another question. It
could be for example:

procedure fill(bowl: out glass := <>; filled: out boolean := True);

Here I see from the spec, that bowl could be possibly invalid.

Should I write:

procedure fill(bowl: out glass; filled: out boolean);

then the compiler would complain that this form of parameter
specification is allowed for only the types having initial values.

---
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de