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,ab1d177a5a26577d
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: What's wrong with C++?
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: 
 <1ee1a434-4048-48f6-9f5e-d8126bebb808@r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
 <b1f0b153-dc79-4b3c-a936-68723e76a4db@x1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:02:58 +0100
Message-ID: <jbejuuszjy3y.vyllayr73kh0$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Feb 2011 10:02:58 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: ef12d084.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=mN>iS9<Yn4^aoembcbF;DQ4IUK<Cl32<Q4Fo<]lROoRQ8kF<OcfhCO[Uc_UQUhc?UQ[6LHn;2LCV^7enW;^6ZC`T\`mfM[68DCS5O>`?GXgb0^
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:18299
Date: 2011-02-17T10:02:58+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 00:31:52 -0800 (PST), Ludovic Brenta wrote:

> In Ada, the two named access types are incompatible with one another;
> they have no structural equivalence.

The flaw here is structural equivalence and, more generally, type
inference. Not everybody agree that type inference is bad. I do believe
that it is.

Note that Ada 95/2005/201x keep on moving towards more inference. I guess
that the reason for that is the easiness one could patch certain language
deficiencies per inference here and there, without reconsidering the
underlying [serious] problems.

> (I don't like anonymous access types at all, neither in C++ nor in
> Ada).

It puzzles me that nobody said anything in favor of anonymous access types,
yet they are here. 

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