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: a07f3367d7,73cb216d191f0fef
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.180.10.230 with SMTP id l6mr1281676wib.3.1363398964208;
        Fri, 15 Mar 2013 18:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 g1ni68399wig.0!nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!82.197.223.108.MISMATCH!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!85.12.40.130.MISMATCH!xlned.com!feeder1.xlned.com!news.astraweb.com!border2.a.newsrouter.astraweb.com!newsfeed10.multikabel.net!multikabel.net!newsfeed20.multikabel.net!news.mi.ras.ru!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx05.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is this expected behavior or not
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:45:56 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <lysj3zmbvv.fsf@pushface.org>
References: <c988e09f-8532-4840-9749-b61aa39551b4@googlegroups.com>
	<wccfw017lkv.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
	<b9c8e444-4fcc-489f-8101-0a2873807987@googlegroups.com>
	<mtz6eyrgv524.r2yf3jw9vid3$.dlg@40tude.net>
	<wccmwu8r0xh.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
	<8klywqh2pf$.1f949flc1xeia.dlg@40tude.net>
	<513f6e2f$0$6572$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
	<b3jec1s37hwu$.bg5cvsul0r5$.dlg@40tude.net>
	<513faaf7$0$6626$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
	<aufd7vornmrk.2dxqrc3egrtg$.dlg@40tude.net>
	<khphpb$5f1$1@dont-email.me>
	<w46epyd1vjc2.1e1bviaog2kwi$.dlg@40tude.net>
	<51408e81$0$6577$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
	<dc71f389-dbfa-493f-8ca2-36445f130b4f@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="72a7bb6120f61bc7749e29c9c2e535af";
	logging-data="3376"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/4t4VcVlq/FULtoib3lICCpjTfI4/n+pc="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uvBb2C/jgaEr7HX/hLFVtOuy72w=
	sha1:NzvsVl2Ul3iGxlN4uVndtvJlygU=
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: 2013-03-13T17:45:56+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 8:34:41 AM UTC-6, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>> 
>> External observations inspired by whichever type theory do
>> not apply when judging things from the Ada perspective.
>> I'd find observations interesting only when someone is pondering
>> language design, not when explaining properties of an existing
>> language. Randy mentioned a time machine...
>
> I don't know, I think that if I could alter the the past (Ada 83) for
> some minor alterations it would be to include null-exclusion on access
> types... seems like that would have been far more useful in-practice
> than mucking about with 'Pred/'Succ or 'First/'Last. -- child packages
> would have been nice from the inception, but I don't think the
> compiler-writers would have tolerated the added complexity there given
> that as it was Ada 83 was pushing the bleeding-edge bounds of compiler
> technology.

I don't remember ever using 'Pred/'Succ, but I'd sorely miss
'First/'Last.