Re: Is this expected behavior or not

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

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:05:39 +0100, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> I did chose this confused view to demonstrate what will be the
> effect of confusing subtype constraints (or not, as in 'Succ)
> and types in the sense everyone here is supposed to approach
> the word "type". Except when indicated.

I already addressed this. When type+constraint is not considered a type
the language becomes weakly typed.

Note also that any language, even untyped, can be attributed with types.
And programmers think in terms of types even if the language does not allow
to articulate these types in language terms.

Ada's strength, e.g. comparing to C, is in allowing to articulate types and
their relationships (e.g. subtypes) rather than leaving them to reader's
imagination.

> Ada is then not a typed LSP language at the level of subtype constraints
> and attributes of types. Make it such a language, make it convincing,
> and define a model that can be turned into Ada language definitions.

You are confusing LSP with typing. LSP is much less than typing in general.
Ada subtype is not an LSP-subtype, yet both Ada- and LSP-subtypes are
types.

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