Re: Is this expected behavior or not

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

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 21:38:28 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> On 17.04.13 11:57, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> 
>>> If the Ada type system cannot express
>>> time and space, I'll still consider them
>>> functional requirements.
>>
>> And this should justify conflation of a representation with the type
>> semantics... surely.
> 
> Representation is functional,

You should feel obliged to write an AI to disband ARM 7.3.

> Nothing is conflated here because semantics is assignment of meaning,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics

> String is a good example. String is an array, and nothing else.

Wrong. String has an array interface. In fact it has at least two array
interfaces one of character/code points, another of encoding units.
Operations like Find can be considered a third array interface. In many
languages strings can be indexed by strings.

> The existence of RM A.4.({4,5}) is of no consequence. To hell with it.

In that case show us a way to create unbounded arrays with representation
guts inside out.

Your concept simply does not hold. There are simple indisputable facts:

1. The representation of string object is irrelevant to what string is.

2. It is impossible to have one implementation suitable for all string
objects and all application domains that use strings, e.g. DNA sequencing,
pattern matching, text processing, compiler construction etc.

> The existence of RM 3.6 is essential, because of array semantics.

Array semantics? What's that? You claimed that semantics is representation.

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