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: Strings with discriminated records Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 17:20:40 +0200 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: <55ce14eb-6b83-4ea0-a550-f9e1410d0b06@googlegroups.com> <51dfb377-1b3e-45ca-a211-158101efe557@googlegroups.com> <090d6eb2-9f52-4471-a22e-ce1bdf457188@googlegroups.com> <90f0f8da-dadd-4341-bc0f-dbda94b0516c@googlegroups.com> <137bcc76-2489-4557-979b-5efeecbd9289@googlegroups.com> <02ca60ab-0cf6-45d6-bed5-0358d4f5763d@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: CvkHMVp693S8Z+lk11jyqg.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/52.8.0 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.3 Content-Language: en-US Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:52842 Date: 2018-06-01T17:20:40+02:00 List-Id: On 2018-06-01 15:35, Dan'l Miller wrote: > In that hypothetical Ada++ for the 21st century, every externally-visible portion of the interface of a package would be required to be versioned, so that laggards can stay with the old clunky version-x interface unmodified and trendy people can run with the Cool Kids by using the next-gen version-x+1 interface. Versions on which level? Versioning on the level of compilation unit will not be sufficient. Versioning on the level of individual types could be very difficult. [ The problem must be certainly addressed because the actual situation with maintenance of dynamic libraries becomes increasingly intolerable as we part with monolithic software architectures in all areas. ] > Indeed, Ada++ for the 21st century would just entirely remove the syntax for overusing use-clauses, forcing the more-piecemeal alternative*. I would rather eliminate with-clause as useless. The use-clause would be the only method to express a dependency. I would make illegal any use clause that hides anything. The programmer would have explicitly rename any conflicting items. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de