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" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: grassroots thoughts on access types
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 15:44:29 +0100
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <p5n0gc$jju$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <5d9134c9-a7d4-468e-8685-ebbb393eabea@googlegroups.com>
 <p5kk5i$5fj$1@dont-email.me> <p5kl6u$12m5$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <p5krq3$103$1@dont-email.me> <wcck1vlex4t.fsf@TheWorld.com>
 <p5l4nl$4hm$1@dont-email.me> <p5l60c$ol$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <p5mg12$k9a$1@dont-email.me> <p5mhv5$1r9m$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <p5mk37$dgu$1@dont-email.me>
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
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.3
Content-Language: en-US
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:50369
Date: 2018-02-10T15:44:29+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2018-02-10 12:12, Jeffrey R. Carter wrote:
> On 02/10/2018 11:36 AM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>
>> 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.
> 
> I don't understand. I said a language that doesn't have anonymous access 
> types cannot have features that rely on anonymous access types. By that 
> I mean such a language cannot provide a feature that requires the user 
> to write an anonymous access type.
> 
> I did not say that such a language cannot have any specific feature; 
> only that such a language cannot have an implementation that relies on 
> anonymous access types of any feature.
> 
> This seems to be a tautology to me.
> 
> Can you show me how a language that doesn't have anonymous access types 
> can have features that rely on anonymous access types?

Ada 83 has String type implemented without pointers. Ada 83 has

   A(X) := A(X) + 1

working with arrays, again, no pointers.

Why must Ada 2005 use access types for having this with containers? It 
must not. Should it have this feature still. Certainly.

Pointers is a easy way to work around most of language problems at the 
cost of software design.

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