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: a07f3367d7,735c710b5e547bad
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.224.138.146 with SMTP id a18mr11588180qau.6.1343789455965;
        Tue, 31 Jul 2012 19:50:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.66.89.196 with SMTP id bq4mr3468904pab.26.1343789455885;
        Tue, 31 Jul 2012 19:50:55 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 a15ni13561295qag.0!nntp.google.com!r1no8397304qas.0!news-out.google.com!g9ni9635140pbo.0!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nrc-news.nrc.ca!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada 2005 puzzle
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 20:21:58 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <l6n516v35cza$.cgfx8f7ofacj.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <1arp60wtxes8h$.1qs6bt732ztgp.dlg@40tude.net>
 <ju8atj$734$1@munin.nbi.dk> <wd9m63dfb4hn.1feik6xrauuel$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <juafd9$fa5$1@munin.nbi.dk> <1agfifqlayl3y.1bp09z5i37ewk$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <jucrlq$d2c$1@munin.nbi.dk> <1nnq1oprn6h4f.1s5myl3oupdds$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <jul1rf$3rn$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <57ed1bca-b503-492c-a3b1-012369484e93@googlegroups.com>
 <e3lpckmcck22$.eqnl4sn38ezy$.dlg@40tude.net> <juq03a$aph$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <1gt5njrqzprkt$.1f9deqqcwyyuq.dlg@40tude.net> <m2vchapt3w.fsf@nidhoggr.home>
 <1g6eygs4wyie8.x1sl1gap1gec$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <c2f946fc-c028-4869-a469-5f79aee11556@googlegroups.com>
 <16ft4hb6xzphu.z8f7urnw3xu0.dlg@40tude.net>
 <50128262$0$6554$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <1x51ztmeo2hll.jtsosl0kzzhi.dlg@40tude.net>
 <a43a3b4b-efeb-475f-9c5d-d19232c91c1c@googlegroups.com>
 <2dyx4yaenfz9$.ldh4ahlp469f.dlg@40tude.net>
 <50ba6370-c055-478a-af3d-3e31ae11da99@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: 9A8bJrx4NhDLcSmbrb6AdA.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-07-28T20:21:58+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 09:59:27 -0700 (PDT), AdaMagica wrote:

> On Saturday, July 28, 2012 12:37:21 PM UTC+2, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>> I see what you mean. But since no objects of abstract types may exist and
>>> somehow you have to provide the private components of derived nonprivate
>>> objects, the proper Ada way (as intended by ARG, I guess) is child
>>> packages.
>>
>> That changes nothing. An abstract type remains abstract. You can derive a
>> non-abstract (and thus necessarily broken) type from it and expose the
>> latter.
> 
> I don't understand what you mean (for non-limited types; I see the problem for limited ones).
> Why is it necessarily broken? It has private and visible parts, so what?

You derive from the type for the sole purpose of being able to write a
function returning an instance of. But the initial reason of being abstract
was to prevent very existence of such functions because the type is
non-functional, abstract.

(The concept of construction per a function is unsound independently on the
limited/non-limited issue with regard to abstract types. An abstract type
may require initialization, but shall have no objects. Even if the
"limited" kludge worked, it would remain broken.)

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