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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,31af760e939556ef X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.velia.net!noris.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Subject: Re: Interpretation of extensions different from Unix/Linux? Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de Organization: cbb software GmbH References: <8a5f3b98-1c5a-4d47-aca7-e106d1223fa9@a26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> <87skg7952j.fsf@jspa-nykredit.sparre-andersen.dk> <1f999bfa99erz$.9b8p6yymr8x7$.dlg@40tude.net> <1d0e8zv4oco66$.1qqitij5kmc4w$.dlg@40tude.net> <1x1alb3nqznbn.5pnmbt638tqf$.dlg@40tude.net> Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:43:43 +0200 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Aug 2009 09:43:43 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: edd3e583.newsspool3.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=Tob[X?DJaJf]BlmkiiU@BiMcF=Q^Z^V3h4Fo<]lROoRa^YC2XCjHcbiN8@>nj\>j@iDNcfSJ;bb[eFCTGGVUmh?dLK[5LiR>kgb7F7T^:U<7hf X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6961 Date: 2009-08-21T09:43:43+02:00 List-Id: On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:08:31 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote: > "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote in message > news:1x1alb3nqznbn.5pnmbt638tqf$.dlg@40tude.net... > ... >> Expensive than what? There is no any cheaper way to index characters of an >> UTF-8 string. It not expensive it how it is. Do you propose not to provide >> indexing characters of a UTF-8 string? > > If it is strongly typed, I'd only provide storage and equality comparisons. > No indexing, surely no slicing, and not even any ordering operators. They're > all too expensive to implement. But you defined UTF-8 String as Standard.String. That has indexing, which is broken. I don't understand your point, sorry. >> I have nothing against it, except that Ada standard cannot mandate the way >> roots are to be enumerated under Windows. What it has to mandate is that >> an ability to enumerate roots shall be provided. > > I disagree with everything you wrote on this topic. And there will be a way > to enumerate roots over my dead body, because it is not reliably > implementable on Windows (no matter how you define the roots). Then the consequence must be removing Ada.Directories altogether. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de