Re: Musing on defining attributes and the ability to define an "abstract type X"-interface.

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On 2017-08-08 01:12, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "Shark8" <onewingedshark@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:36a1a83d-f3d7-4e3c-827d-addeadc28ccc@googlegroups.com...
>> !topic Adding an "Abstract Type" to enable simplification of the language
>> definition.
>> !reference Ada2012 RM??.??(??)
>> !from Edward Fish 17-08-05
>> !keywords abstraction, types, simplification
>> !discussion
> 
> I doubt anyone wants to do a lot of work just to "simplify the language
> definition".

It is much more that just definitions. More general concepts do solve 
problems. You would argue against Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism too.

> By years of experience, there is no such thing -- it will just
> be a *different* language definition, with a different set of pitfalls.

If you don't care about fundamentals and language consistency it will.

> Remember that the language is maintained almost exclusively by volunteers -
> people are not signing up to make changes for the sake of changes.

Even more important to concentrate resources on real problems rather 
than piling up kludges upon kludges. It was possible for Ada 95, it 
should be possible now.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de