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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 border1.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!backlog3.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!gandalf.srv.welterde.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: Your wish list for Ada 202X
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 16:27:09 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <lh4pfe$vrn$1@loke.gir.dk>
References: <7f1c01c5-3563-4b94-9831-152dbbf2ecdc@googlegroups.com>
 <tvtYu.83108$tD4.27538@fx25.iad> <lgve1q$b56$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <x9RYu.3020$XJ3.767@fx09.iad> <lh26es$3gg$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <o4o5ao9k7hz9.l7ebk8qxfv32.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1396042030 32631 69.95.181.76 (28 Mar 2014 21:27:10 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 21:27:10 +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
X-Original-Bytes: 2363
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:185400
Date: 2014-03-28T16:27:09-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message 
news:o4o5ao9k7hz9.l7ebk8qxfv32.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:50:20 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote:
...
> Real issue: Multi-methods (String vs String) and full multiple dispatch
> (String vs Character)

That's an alternative, but the question is whether that can be implemented 
with less overhead than the scheme I suggested. I believe the answer is no, 
at least within generalized string packages (which hopefully will become the 
norm for new string operations in Ada). It's surely one of the questions to 
be considered - nothing I think on this topic (or any topic, for that 
matter) is likely to be the last word.

> To reiterate the point. The implementation of strings in Ada is all OK, it
> is the interface to this implementation which sucks.

Right, but that manifests itself in duplicated and overly restrictive 
packages, which would have to be reworked in order to use a more general 
interfaces. (Ada.Strings.Bounded and Ada.Strings.Unbounded in particular 
have overloaded operations that would make everything ambiguous if not 
eliminated.)

                              Randy.