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: a07f3367d7,9983e856ed268154
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.236.185.103 with SMTP id t67mr11103741yhm.49.1344998912725;
        Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:48:32 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 c6ni112127729qas.0!nntp.google.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nrc-news.nrc.ca!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Should Inline be private in the private part of a package spec?
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 00:10:12 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <ik9o525iexoa$.1b9lk5kckyq7a.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <501bd285$0$6564$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <e416cb92-6ec8-4514-8fa9-c35d6432b117@googlegroups.com>
 <wcc4noj4zof.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <jvnchp$r5c$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <wccr4rkqed5.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <op.wiml9rw3ka8ora@aspire.local>
 <502005b6$0$9510$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <op.wim0pbprka8ora@aspire.local>
 <50203ca2$0$9512$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <502040c0$0$9510$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <k01amo$jio$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <50677fa2-7f82-4ccc-8c56-161bf67fefe1@googlegroups.com>
 <3235054d-3832-4127-83f1-784a3ee50d01@googlegroups.com>
 <xsxy7zf5hycd$.85ey2djah2lz$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <c4db9c9a-1b9c-48a7-98ac-af894fc1783f@googlegroups.com>
 <1egt1n41ny80z.myfwptqjdcjt$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <ba51bc10-9993-4c5d-b572-781b2ef48f2e@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: 9A8bJrx4NhDLcSmbrb6AdA.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
X-Received-Bytes: 2513
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-08-11T00:10:12+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:35:28 -0700 (PDT), Shark8 wrote:

> Files *are* persistent objects... indeed, they are persistent across
> power-on/power-off cycles, which makes them even more persistent than
> anything else in the system (save the hardware).

1. Files are weakly typed objects. One can "reinterpret" a file as one can
reinterpret anything in C.

2. The operations defined on files do not reflect the semantics of the
contents but the semantics of the file system, e.g. reading, writing. It is
low-level stuff. Compare this with Integer is a higher-level language. You
don't read integers. You would do this in an assemble language, loading
registers, storing them into memory etc. When I say "object" I mean an
object of some ADT, rather that objects found in Assemble language.

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