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
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "G.B." <bauhaus@futureapps.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: function Is_Open (File : File_Type) return Boolean; :Text_io
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:41:04 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <n0o9ak$3pq$1@dont-email.me>
References: <f30bbb5d-ebfd-427b-8c16-88aeb8a61318@googlegroups.com>
 <87twpd2qlo.fsf@theworld.com> <1pj15r7pul7f1.15qgdyrc8k133$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <n0o00t$ss6$2@dont-email.me> <wycw6juueecq.1ecjqubhnqxmg$.dlg@40tude.net>
Reply-To: nonlegitur@futureapps.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 16:38:44 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="b96887e80893c84a90c3007226ca0d1c";
	logging-data="3898"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/EW/GyFRqb1U9o4pHQwNXOfBJVVQinxlA="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
In-Reply-To: <wycw6juueecq.1ecjqubhnqxmg$.dlg@40tude.net>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8M+dbxFZ2/CsfPp0EQlXwmiFPbM=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:28078
Date: 2015-10-27T17:41:04+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 27.10.15 16:10, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:02:18 +0100, G.B. wrote:
>
>> On 27.10.15 09:30, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>> Yes, but you cannot put a constraint on an existing object.
>>
>> Why would that be important, given objects' states, and also
>> type conversions?
>
> That was not my point. The point is that the object is the example at hand
> is unconstrained. It is valid and a *use case* for a log file to be closed.

O.K., as I read it, Bob's reply works convincingly if considered rather
self-contained. And with reference to typical logging situations?

(I agree that there are varying expectations regarding a log file,
one implied by the example, viz. writing only if the file is open
and silently "ignoring" the call otherwise. But this seems a rather
far fetched setup to me. I'd expect that a log file that is not in
an open state should raise, degrees of verbosity of logging being
part of configuration. A specific exception pinpoints the error.)