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 10.68.8.135 with SMTP id r7mr28112964pba.8.1317125661519; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 05:14:21 -0700 (PDT) Path: lh7ni5947pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: discriminant questions Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:14:48 +0200 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: References: <9f37b726-d80b-4d24-bf3f-28a14255f7fd@s20g2000yql.googlegroups.com> <14tiipigyejtc$.hyp7e82egqwq$.dlg@40tude.net> <34d856bd-19a3-4bbf-b9d8-c0f100000ef4@k7g2000vbd.googlegroups.com> <1tpl2pc36ptr4$.txv4v3wmkjlm.dlg@40tude.net> <1malv6h6q31j3.uz9ws5j0glnm.dlg@40tude.net> <4e81a2f4$0$7624$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: FbOMkhMtVLVmu7IwBnt1tw.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:18162 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 2011-09-27T14:14:48+02:00 List-Id: On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:18:28 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > On 27.09.11 10:10, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >> Consider a type system where your precious kludges of old Ada would become >> some type expressions and library implementations rather than built-in >> stuff. > > In the opposite direction, an alternative effort would set out > to find language for the field tested patterns hidden in libraries. No the opposite direction is to have built-in "patterns". In order to have library-provided "patterns", they must be expressible in terms of other, more fundamental, "patterns". It is also interesting how non-implemented "patterns", and as I understand, your desire is to keep them such, could be tested in the field, before being incorporated into the language core? Was for example limited type return tested in the field? Accessibility rules? Anonymous access types? -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de