Re: Is this expected behavior or not

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message 
news:dqljoxvn36my.xkv88psqukp9$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 17:45:24 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>
>> Stefan has it right (even if Ada doesn't): Universal integer is a
>> pseudo-type that only should have an existence to the compiler.
>
> This is what happens when theories face reality. You are ready to declare
> Ada design wrong in order to save the theory. (:-))

Yup. Because it is, and the theory works well. :-)

I certainly don't believe Ada is perfect, and some parts of it are screwed 
up and much more complex than necessary. I'd love to make an Ada-like 
language that had fewer warts. But blowing up its models and starting over 
would certainly introduce a new set of warts because of not understanding 
all of the issues very well. Staying as close as possible to the existing 
models lets us build on the existing experience (and for Ada itself, is 
absolutely necessary).

> As an exercise compare how much of Ada design is wrong according to your
> theory vs. mine?

So far as I know, run-time universals and the occassional mixed type 
operation is it. I'd dump some features of Ada as insufficiently valuable if 
starting from scratch (visibility in nested units would get a makeover), but 
the design would be largely the same.

You seem to want to completely dump the Ada design in favor of something 
based on multi-methods. Multi-methods are the same as weak typing to me, I 
don't want to see them explicitly or implicitly.

                                              Randy.