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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no 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 X-Received: by 10.180.14.40 with SMTP id m8mr1531851wic.7.1368583764013; Tue, 14 May 2013 19:09:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Path: hg5ni110158wib.1!nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!194.109.133.87.MISMATCH!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed1.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!border4.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.news.ucla.edu!nrc-news.nrc.ca!News.Dal.Ca!news.litech.org!news0.firedrake.org!cs.uu.nl!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder2.enfer-du-nord.net!gegeweb.org!news.ecp.fr!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Seeking for papers about tagged types vs access to subprograms Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 19:22:58 -0500 Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation Message-ID: References: <17ceq51ydy3s0.s94miqqzbg5w.dlg@40tude.net> <1vrhb7oc4qbob$.q02vuouyovp5$.dlg@40tude.net> <19lrzzbgm77v6.1dzpgqckptaj6.dlg@40tude.net> <1bfhq7jo34xpi.p8n2vq6yjsea.dlg@40tude.net> <12gn9wvv1gwfk.10ikfju4rzmnj.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1368231779 30664 69.95.181.76 (11 May 2013 00:22:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 00:22:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Date: 2013-05-10T19:22:58-05:00 List-Id: "Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57)" wrote in message news:op.wwung605ule2fv@cardamome... Le Fri, 10 May 2013 00:19:14 +0200, Randy Brukardt a �crit: >> Again, no one said anything about them being isolated. Although I do >> think >> that vast majority of types ought to be separate from other types -- the >> interactions being handled in the operations, not in the types >> themselves. > >Right, except while you say this, the only static check sub-programs or >primitive operations provide, is the one applying on the types of their >arguments. So there is nothing handled by operations (at least, so far). > >The point is still good enough, as at first sight, seems there are >operations which cannot said to be owned by a single type, so that may >looks hard to focus on type with this picture. Or else, there is a need >for a type representing sub-program signature (something I wanted to reply >to Dmitry in another message), the arguments tuple, then optionally the >result tuple, and optionally both tuples, say the type of a transition as >an example. With this, interactions between types can be represented with >types. One of the reasons I chose "profile" for the name of the thingy that I was describing on top of types was that I expected it to include profile operations. That's because I figured that a redesign of Ada would have first-class subprogram types; (along with subprogram objects); there is no good reason to use explicit "access" values for this. (Object access values are so different from the subprogram kind that there is virtually no commonality, so it's confusing to treat them as the same sort of thing.) And of course, any first-class type would need an associated profile. Randy.