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: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada 2012 Constraints (WRT an Ada IR) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 22:15:31 +0100 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: <1af458a8-cf5b-4dd7-824d-eed1ed5ffb21@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: s3c6wwRqkurrfTZpuYYZ+w.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:32938 Date: 2016-12-21T22:15:31+01:00 List-Id: On 2016-12-21 19:26, G.B. wrote: > On 21/12/2016 16:56, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >> It is a continuous subset. This preserves a lot of properties like >> being a convex set a,b in S => (a+b)/2 in S etc. > > The subtype in question seems to be this: > > subtype Z_Too is > X range X'Range -- 1 .. 100 > with Static_Predicate => Z_Too > 0; > > I see no breaks there. It is for the compiler to see breaks, which it cannot. There is a far better and safer model to produce user-defined subtypes that this mess. >> That would produce non-sets. > > At compile time? Otherwise, how can a specification of membership by > any Boolean function "produce" anything but that decision, if it does > compute a result? When predicate is not a complete function of the argument, e.g. P (x) = (Integer (Clock - Epoch) mod 2) = 1 > Also, how can one predict, from a SW design POV or > otherwise, that those "run-time sets" of subtypes do not reflect what > the engineers had been carefully designing, and documenting that way? Easy. Anything contradicting results of more general frameworks, like logic, mathematics etc is not even considered. Engineers insisting that 2+2=5 or doing things because the spirit of Napoleon told them so are to be fired and probably sent to medical examination. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de