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: 103376,70414f56d810c10c X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.68.38.38 with SMTP id d6mr4479971pbk.4.1316846783862; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 23:46:23 -0700 (PDT) Path: lh7ni3741pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!news2.euro.net!feeder.news-service.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: discriminant questions Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 08:46:23 +0200 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: References: <9f37b726-d80b-4d24-bf3f-28a14255f7fd@s20g2000yql.googlegroups.com> <01a1374f-59ab-40be-9e39-0640cb2a513d@n35g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> <1fp2o673mu9az$.d9loz1zbcl0d.dlg@40tude.net> <14tiipigyejtc$.hyp7e82egqwq$.dlg@40tude.net> <34d856bd-19a3-4bbf-b9d8-c0f100000ef4@k7g2000vbd.googlegroups.com> <1tpl2pc36ptr4$.txv4v3wmkjlm.dlg@40tude.net> <1malv6h6q31j3.uz9ws5j0glnm.dlg@40tude.net> Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: eI5f/6w385de83NZyR/K4w.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 Xref: news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18109 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 2011-09-24T08:46:23+02:00 List-Id: On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:50:57 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote: > You seem to want to totally avoid the purpose of containers, which is to > eliminate unsafe memory management and pointer usage. I thought that the purpose is organizing data in a structured way. > Your interface ideas probably would make sense in a totally new language, > but would be totally unimplementable in Ada (we'd have to get rid of at > least discriminants, subtypes, general access types, and generics to have > any chance to make them work). Reworking Ada's type system was never seriously considered since Ada 95 design. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de