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: a07f3367d7,39579ad87542da0e
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.224.10.6 with SMTP id n6mr22358133qan.4.1368583257251;
        Tue, 14 May 2013 19:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: 
 y6ni44321qax.0!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.news.ucla.edu!nrc-news.nrc.ca!News.Dal.Ca!news.litech.org!news.stack.nl!reality.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Seeking for papers about tagged types vs access to subprograms
Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 15:12:38 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <kmebjm$eds$1@loke.gir.dk>
References: <op.wv8jh1c1ule2fv@cardamome> <op.wwbvqzkeule2fv@cardamome>
 <op.wwnp2zkrule2fv@cardamome> <u3jaslg5kca7.1gk5ds3d4sx2y$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <op.wwnsmtteule2fv@cardamome> <17ceq51ydy3s0.s94miqqzbg5w.dlg@40tude.net>
 <op.wwny5jerule2fv@cardamome> <1vrhb7oc4qbob$.q02vuouyovp5$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <op.wwn4oak8ule2fv@cardamome> <19lrzzbgm77v6.1dzpgqckptaj6.dlg@40tude.net>
 <kmbohm$elb$1@loke.gir.dk> <p0pf97g5w6xg.jhca6ztjwpde$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1368043958 14780 69.95.181.76 (8 May 2013 20:12:38 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 20:12:38 +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: 2013-05-08T15:12:38-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message 
news:p0pf97g5w6xg.jhca6ztjwpde$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 7 May 2013 15:35:01 -0500, Jacob Sparre Andersen news wrote:
>
>> The main thing is that
>> the result most certainly would not be Ada, but rather would be a new
>> language *inspired by* Ada.
>
> No, that was the path taken by Ada 2005 and Ada 2012. Patches are
> destroying the language fabric.

I'm not talking about "patches", I'm talking about starting over. And so are 
you...

> What I wish is to change the language foundation while keeping the
> semantics of existing types intact. The whole idea is to move them onto 
> the
> library level rather than changing anything in them.

That's precisely what I'm talking about. The result cannot be Ada, because 
the result is not going to be close to 100% compatible with Ada (and that 
should not be a criteria for a new language). Despite your fantasies to the 
contrary, there is no possibility of changing the models in any useful way 
and retaining compatibility in subtle cases. Moreover, even if possible, the 
pretzel-like rules needed would prevent the sort of overhaul that you really 
desire. So why cling to the mistakes of the past - flush all of that down 
the drain and start over.

                                        Randy.

P.S. Sorry about getting the name wrong in my postings from yesterday, 
especially with any confusion with Jacob.