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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,73cb216d191f0fef X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Received: by 10.180.106.73 with SMTP id gs9mr10067037wib.2.1366409696864; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 15:14:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Path: p18ni348wiv.0!nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!194.134.4.91.MISMATCH!news2.euro.net!newsfeed.x-privat.org!news.jacob-sparre.dk!munin.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is this expected behavior or not Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:14:52 -0500 Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation Message-ID: References: <516e6a0e$0$9505$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <516efa28$0$9518$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <51710936$0$6554$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <84dn4lxu5j$.1mi40bvj8e8tc$.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1366409695 24418 69.95.181.76 (19 Apr 2013 22:14:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 22:14:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Date: 2013-04-19T17:14:52-05:00 List-Id: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote in message news:84dn4lxu5j$.1mi40bvj8e8tc$.dlg@40tude.net... > On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 11:07:05 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote: ... >> "Representation ... is meaningful, therefore it is semantically >> important." >> "semantics is assignment of meaning," > > So representation is not semantics/meaning, at least to the programmer, of > course, not to the hardware running the program, not to the artist using > code printouts as tapestry patterns etc. Ah, now we get to the root of the problem. We're talking about Ada programming language design here, so when I talk about "semantics", I'm talking about the semantics of the Ada programming language, as specified in the Ada standard. I'm not talking about whatever ideas - quite possibly incorrect - that the programmer might have about how their program works. Those could be anything at all, and much like theology, cannot be usefully reasoned about. I've had plenty of misconceptions about Ada myself, even now. Not much point in discussing programmers views (beyond what we would LIKE them to be) when discussing detailed semantics. When you ask: > Confusing semantics of objects with semantics of values they hold? you're demonstrating *your* confusion. We're talking about string objects here. And Ada doesn't have composite values; there are only objects. There are no semantics of composite values, so it's impossible to confuse them with something that does exist. You then go on to say that the existence of different types requires mixing and then at the same time says that different types surely must be kept separate even if the representation is the same. You're essentially arguing both sides of this argument at the same time. One last time: I agree there is value to "generic" (English, not Ada meaning) operations for types. I don't consider such operations "mixing". And occassionally you'll need to explicitly convert one type to another. But that's it. Randy.