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!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: grassroots thoughts on access types Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 11:36:20 +0100 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: <5d9134c9-a7d4-468e-8685-ebbb393eabea@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 9s2HXjYgtb87Rt4JbNw44Q.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 Content-Language: en-US X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.3 Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:50363 Date: 2018-02-10T11:36:20+01:00 List-Id: On 2018-02-10 11:03, Jeffrey R. Carter wrote: > On 02/09/2018 11:06 PM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >> >> It does not follow. Usefulness of X is unrelated to whether X rely on Y. > > I don't recall mentioning usefulness. But what I meant to say is that, > since the language would be better without anonymous access types, that > better language could not have features that rely on anonymous access > types. Which is a logical fallacy. In order to be true you must show that either: 1. These feature are bad as they are regardless what they rely on 2. They cannot be implemented otherwise *and* their usefulness does not outweigh the damage of access types. Both are evidently untrue. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de