Re: Why no Ada.Wide_Directories?

["Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

Le Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:25:39 +0200, J-P. Rosen <rosen@adalog.fr> a écrit:

> Le 21/10/2011 12:07, Vadim Godunko a écrit :
>
>> Why all around stick with concrete representation of textual
>> information? Lets define text as logical sequence of Unicode code
>> points, regardless of external representation (so, encoding); lets
>> define new kind of "string" as private type, provide useful 'syntax
>> sugar' to use it in 'usual' way and lets String/Wide_String/
>> Wide_Wide_String to die. I believe it is true Ada way to separate high
>> level concept and low level representation.
> But that is exactly what Wide_Wide_String is!
>
> So you are proposing to drop Wide_Wide_String on the ground that it is
> visibly an array, and then provide a private type with a lot of (costly)
> machinery to allow it to be manipulated just as if it were an array?
>
> Come on! That's ultra-purism that brings zero improvement in practice.

I have to agree with that pragmatic point of view. We should stick to it.

Common boys and girls, if something is not good for you, design your own  
stuff. Wide_Wide_String just hold the same status as Text_IO: not meant to  
be universally suited to everything, but meant to be a basic  
implementation sufficient to quickly draw an application (either for  
pedagogical purpose or quick model delivery). Specific stuffs, requires  
specific designs, and it's up to you to do the art performance ;) Ada will  
never bring every thing for every purpose.

P.S. Still feel a trouble with file names by the way. Should still be  
fixed, because this actually not even fulfill the above basic expectations.


-- 
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.”  [Epigrams on  
Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [Idem]
Java: Write once, Never revisit